Slashdot Mirror
Domain: un.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to un.org.
Comments · 1,137
-
Re:What if another coutry did the same ?
The UN was in Rwanda. The UN was in Kosovo. When wasn't the UN in Cambodia? It might have been because the US was bombing it at the time, or helping (whether intentionally or not) Pol Pot rise to power there.
-
Re:OFFTOPIC: Re:Fantastic
You know, I hear a lot about U.N. Resolution 242 and its not being enforced. 242 is a chapter VI resolution (chapter VI of the U.N. charter). Resolution 242's "enforcement" is actually up to the parties involved in the dispute (Palestine and Israel). The member states have no obligation to enforce it.
The resolutions pertaining to Iraq are all (I think all) chapter VII resolutions. The member states are obliged to enforce these resolutions.
I didn't know this until a few months ago. I never understood why 242 was never complied with and thought it rather odd that they could get away with it. Now I understand. Chapter VI resolutions are simply the U.N.'s opinion on how a dispute should be settled amongst the parties (my understanding anyway).
BTW, I said 'Brit' out of habit, I guess. I noticed you put puke in parentheses after it. Is that bad? Should I have used Englishman or British or something else instead? Just wondering?
-
Re:OFFTOPIC: Re:Fantastic
You know, I hear a lot about U.N. Resolution 242 and its not being enforced. 242 is a chapter VI resolution (chapter VI of the U.N. charter). Resolution 242's "enforcement" is actually up to the parties involved in the dispute (Palestine and Israel). The member states have no obligation to enforce it.
The resolutions pertaining to Iraq are all (I think all) chapter VII resolutions. The member states are obliged to enforce these resolutions.
I didn't know this until a few months ago. I never understood why 242 was never complied with and thought it rather odd that they could get away with it. Now I understand. Chapter VI resolutions are simply the U.N.'s opinion on how a dispute should be settled amongst the parties (my understanding anyway).
BTW, I said 'Brit' out of habit, I guess. I noticed you put puke in parentheses after it. Is that bad? Should I have used Englishman or British or something else instead? Just wondering?
-
Re:Existing Laws Cover That!!If your country belongs to the UN, then it considers Freedom of Speech to be a basic human right.
From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
The advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people...
Pretty cool, eh?
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
-- Brian -
Re:Bad Strawman there....
If you read the UN charta you will learn that no unprovoked attack on another country is sanctioned by international law.
The UN security council itself likes to overlook this fact. Not like Bush will get another resoltion out of them to sanction his little war anyway. -
Re:you know...
The ocean is a lot closer and cheaper to get to.
Not by much. The closest anyone has gotten to ocean mining is DeBeers and their diamond trawler off Namibia which scrapes the bottom of the ocean floor.
Ocean based mining is still a hideously expensive way to mine, but there's one big problem standing in the way of mining the Ocean floor: Law of the Seas
More Details:
-
Re:Iraqi lives and future vs an ancient battery.Hi, K.
North Korea is arguably a far greater threat to US security than Iraq. The message to the world is thus: Get nukes as fast as you can! That's a very bad message to send.
You see it as a message. I see it as a piece of reality that hasn't changed since 1945. Once you have nuclear weapons, you become effectively unattackable. That's what makes this so urgent. Hussein with nuclear weapons will be unstoppable, and he has a proven history of attacking his neighbors and annexing their land. He did it to Kuwait, and tried to do it to Iran. I think that the prospects of an "Iraqi Empire" covering the middle east are very real and a nuclear-armed Hussein would be impossible to contain. He isn't sacrificing his country to build nuclear weapons for nothing. He expects to get his investment back manyfold once he has them.
I can't see how funding terrorism plays a vital role for suicide bombers. They would have found ways to blow themselves up regardless of financial support. I think the role money plays in terrorism is greatly exaggerated.
Hussein is paying about $25,000 to the families of each suicide bomber. It was $10,000. Then the suicide bombing started to slow down, the bounty was raised to $25,000, and the suicide bombings started to pick up again. According to this 2001 article,, unemployment in the Palestinian territories was at 38%, and the average per-capita income fell from USD2000 to USD1680.
In other words, if you become a suicide bomber, the reward to your family is equivalent to about 15 years guaranteed salary. The average per-capita income in the United States is $30,000. 15 years salary at that rate would be $450,000. The poverty line in the United States is defined at around $13,500. 15 years salary at that rate would be around $200,000. I don't want to dispute the exact numbers, but it's pretty clear that the amount of money being supplied to the poverty-stricken families of suicide bombers is enough to lift them out of poverty and live comfortably for many years, even after they lose their home after Israeli retaliation. It's not just a token payment. It's an active form of recruiting that is very successful. Delivering your immediate/extended family from poverty is a huge incentive to become a suicide bomber, and with that incentive gone, recruiting suicide bombers is going to be much more difficult.
While a prosperous Iraq may incite revolutions in other countries, it is also quite likely to have the opposite effect. Remember that many of these countries have been extremely rich, yet have oppressive regimes, and seeing US as an evil force from outside is going to make oppression stronger.
That's exactly why we can't replace Hussein with another oppressive strongman. But that's my point -- the "liberation" has to be real, or it won't serve the purpose of shutting down the terrorist organizations. Again, this requires a huge chance in U.S. policy. We now have to follow through on our words. This is Bush's risk. If he can't follow through on his promise of democracy, then this will be a disaster.
You give "just a little support" to the regimes of Uzbekistan and Kirgistan. It's deja-vu all over again...
I'll have to defer to you on that
it wouldn't be hard at all to detect nukes if they had them, radioactive dust would remain at the sites where experiments were conducted, easily detectable.
I know a lot about nukes also, and all that a lack of radioactive evidence means is that they are working the U235 route, not the Plutonium route. But we knew that already.
There are two ways to make a nuclear bomb -- you can either extract U235 from natural uranium, or you can build a reactor and breed plutonium. Hussein's original plan was to breed plutonium, hence the breeder reactor that was destroyed by the Israelis. Since then, it's almost certain that he has switched over to an all-U235 weapons program, which is much more expensive, but has the advantage of being virtually undetectable.
A U235 weapon can be created without any radioactive evidence. Basically, you start with natural uranium, and use isotope separation technology to isolate the U235. No radiation or nuclear waste is created in the process. This is why the discovery of UF6 gas centrifuge technology is so disconcerting. It points to a nuclear weapons program that can be easily and perfectly concealed.
Also, the only reason that the U.S. conducted a test-firing of an atomic bomb was because of the extremely complex technology required to make a plutonium implosion bomb work. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima, on the other hand, was a U235 bomb. A U235 bomb is much, much simpler. It's basically a cannon, with a U235 ring at the breech end, and a U235 slug as the "bullet". One moving part. You fire the cannon, and when the bullet enters the breech, it creates a critical mass, and the fission reaction runs away. The U.S. was so absolutely convinced that the Hiroshima bomb would work that they dropped it untested. Once you have the U235, building an atomic bomb is much, much easier then building a plutonium bomb. If you overbuild it even slightly, it's practically guaranteed to work.
I would be a lot more concerned with terrorists setting off a nuke in a US harbor they built inside a container in a ship than Saddam building nukes.
Agreed, which is why a missile defense system is obsolete. If your mission is to destroy a U.S. city, then launching a missile means national suicide, where as if you sneak a bomb into a harbor you are likely to get away with it. That's another reason why a covert nuclear weapons program is so dangerous. Plus, just an observation, The Al Quaida planners appear to be huge Tom Clancy fans. Crashing airplanes into buildings is right out of Debt of Honor., and presumably they've gotten their hands on a copy of The Sum Of All Fears.
I don't know that much about biological and chemical weapons, but lets note one thing: There's nothing you can do with bombs that you can't do with inspectors in a fast helicopter. You could look for similar things
First, we don't know where most of the weapons are, and we won't be able to begin finding them until the U.S. has taken control of Iraq and wiped out Hussein's secret police network. Once that is done, we will easily find the weapons, using the same powerful technique that we used in the Gulf war. Bags of money. Most of the weapons systems found in the last war were found by bribing soldiers and officials. It's the most cost-effective system ever. You can spend a million dollars trying to track down a weapons system, or you can find someone who knows, and give them $10,000. It's the most basic, oldest, low-tech form of intelligence known to man, but it won't work until we're on the ground, and have wiped out the existing regime and secret police network.
Second, something that people seem to forget, the purpose of the inspectors was not to find the weapons. The resolution was that the inspectors would be led to the weapons, and would verify their destruction. This is not happening. One or two bombs every couple of weeks does not count. If Hussein were really complying with Res. 1441, the inspectors would be busy monitoring the destruction of thousands of missiles and weapons systems, and thousands of gallons of biological and chemical agents per day.
Third, the only reason that Hussein is allowing the inspectors in is that he is confident that they won't be able to find anything.
And finally, by all evidence, the inspectors have been compromised. According to Blix, they have all been offered bribes, and some of them have accepted those bribes. The Iraqis have infiltrated the inspection teams, and are being tipped off as to where the inspections are going to be. The best explanation as to why they are doing this seems to be that the inspectors see their primary role not as disarming Iraq, but in preventing war. In other words, if they admit that the inspections have failed, then they feel that they will be responsible for the war. As a result, they have now shifted from their intended role -- overseeing Iraqi destruction of their own weapons -- to a new role of working with the Iraqis to deter a U.S. attack. Hence the microscopic "progress", the dribbling out of weapons here and there. The Iraqis voluntarily hand over two weapons, and the inspectors call this a sign of progress and declare that they need more months. It isn't "progress."
In other words, the entire inspection process is a sham. It's purpose is now delay, not disarmament.
What if the inspectors continue to "inspect" Iraq for five more years, until Hussein successfully test-fires an atomic bomb, announces that Iraq is now a nuclear power, and kicks the inspectors out? Is this implausable? It appears to be Hussein's entire long-term strategy!
For example I regard the "depleted uranium" craze as a complete panic with no basis in reality.
Agreed. Depleted uranium is about as radioactive as the surrounding sand. however, large segments of the media appear to be completely ignorant about this detail. In reality, those birth defects and cancers are far more likely to be caused by exposure to chemical weapons, which the Depleted Uranium crowd conveniently forget have been used by Hussein against the Iraqi people time after time.
[U.S. attack vs revolution] To attempt an answer, it is extremely important for a people to have their own destiny in their own hands.
Internal revolutions rarely turn out well. They tend to result in a power struggle that is won by the most ruthless of the internal factions.
As an example of what we're trying to do, after the U.S. military victory in Afghanistan, the U.S. brought the factions together, provided a building with military guard, and pretty much told them to go in and not come out until they had created a representational government. Now you can argue about whether it is working or not, but if the Taliban had been ousted by a violent revolution, this would not have happened. Those warlords would not have been sitting together in a room. They would have been battling it out for control of the country. The purpose of U.S. occupation of Iraq is:
1) To prevent a power vacuum and the resulting violent power struggle.
2) To safeguard the new government against foreign invasion. (Saudi Arabia has been floating the idea of sending in "Arab peacekeepers")
3) To ensure that the new government is formed peacefully, with the participation of all of Iraq's internal factions.
None of which would come to pass in a violent revolution.
Only if they can convince a lot of people that they do have an enemy, it is possible for the theocrats to retain power. And right now, the US is that enemy. If the US seize to be that enemy, there will be a lot more room for improvement in Iran.
I think that the U.S. actively turning Iraq into a prosperous democracy will have an enormous effect on the Iranian people. They will want it too, and will be much more likely to turn to the U.S. to help make it happen.
Far more then if the U.S. stands by and does nothing. That's what we are doing now, and it isn't making us very popular. Besides, right now, Hussein's grip on Iraq is so strong that the odds of a revolution any time soon are practically zero. I think that it's a fantasy option. It's only possible with the sort of massive covert aid that I'm arguing is doomed to be a long-term strategic failure.
As for Bush recent speech, it wasn't really anything new there, as far as I can see.
Up until that speech, the message was "disarm Hussein." That speech was, "Bring democracy to the Arab world." That's a huge shift, and based on the current wave of articles on arabnews, the Saudis don't like it a bit. As a matter of fact, they're pissed off and freaking out. For good reason. If the U.S. succeeds in converting Iraq into a democracy, then the Saudi general population -- the vast majority who are not part of the monarchy -- are going to want the same thing, and the monarchy will be doomed. And that's part of Bush's secret strategy. The Saudis are part of the problem. It's just that they don't fully comprehend that we know it and are working, in the long term, to eliminate the threat of the Saudi monarchy to world peace. The Saudis are easily worse then Hussein as far as being a danger. I still haven't forgotten the Saudi "Terror telethon", where they raised $100,000,000 in contributions and handed the money over the Arafat. It isn't that we're ignoring them
The US has very likely destroyed the UN.
Sorry, but the U.N. died with the fall of the Soviet Union. It isn't much of a loss. It's packed with dictatorships and tyrants. The U.N. was really a proxy organization for U.S./Soviet relations. I will agree that the U.S. has been very liberally handing out the rope for the U.N. to hang itself, but the problem is that the U.N. has gone from being pro-democratic to being pro-terrorist and pro-dictatorship. The U.N. has run its course. It will collapse and be replaced, perhaps by an institution that demands representational government as a condition of participation.
one of my favorite one-liners is "Violence is always the last resort of the incompetent" (Isaac Asimov).
I don't know the context of the quote, but it is woefully incomplete. Just because you're using violence doesn't mean that you're incompetant. It can also mean that you're defending yourself, or preventing greater violence, or liberating a people from a tyrant. This war is all about preventing greater violence and ending ongoing violence.
I really can't think of any justice system or science that can work without [the] principle [that] "the burden of the proof is on the claimnant"
International relations have never worked that way. A "justice system" presupposes a greater authority. There is no "greater authority" in world politics. It certainly isn't the U.N., where a small number of large democracies are outnumbered by dozens and dozens of small dictatorships. I reject the theory that the United States must, as a matter of some principle, treat a murderous dictatorship in the same manner as a representative democracy. This theory seems especially popular with dictators and corrupt governments, but I don't buy it.
If the U.S. goes in, and finds no WMD, and if the Iraqis rise up against us, then history will be our judge and the prestige and influence of the U.S. will be diminished. If on the other hand, we go in, and find bunkers full of nerve gas and chemical weapons, and mass graves, and operating uranium gas centrifuges, and completed nuclear bomb assemblies waiting for the uranium components, and widespread evidence of Iraqi government atrocities, then it will be a different story.
I personally think that the Iraqi people will be dancing in the streets once they are rid of Hussein, and with the sanctions lifted, Iraq will become the richest industrial democracy in the Middle East. And then the other Arab dictatorships will collapse. And then the threat of terrorism will cease, because the general population will choose security and wealth over terrorism and death. To quote again from Bush's speech:It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world -- or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim -- is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life.
Bush is tapping into a deep, powerful well. As I said, either you believe that he's sincere, or that he's lying and it's business as usual. I think that he's sincere in his beliefs and intentions in this instance. If you don't think that he's sincere, then you won't trust him. It all comes down to that basic assessment. -
Bad Link!
-
Bad Link!
-
Re:Ding!Oh come now, those links to the UN can be found in about 10 seconds. I gather from your remarks that you have read them? I doubt very much that is the case, but you can claim whatever you wish. The rest of us would be better off with links to actual documents, instead of to a library catalog. Unless you live in or near Manhattan, your links are relatively useless. You included them in your post merely for cosmetic effect, that much is obvious.
The rest of us "type 3 morons" (as you call us in another post) would find links to actual documents much more useful, such as the UN charter and the security council's resolutions (including 1441.
What is really objectionable about this and others of your posts, more so than your harsh tone, shallow arguments, and your laughable attempts at appearing documented, is your claim that I am anti-American because I don't blindly support military action as the centerpiece mechanism for getting things done in the world. I can only assume you are still in middle- or high-school, not only from the tone and content of your posts, but because if you were much older, it would be clearer to you that war does not accomplish what it promises. If you can glean a single insight from 20th century history, that would be it. Also, I strongly urge you to do one or two years of volunteer work in some third world country, it doesn't really matter which one. Choose any organization you like, a religious organization, the peace corps, whatever. Pay less attention to the guidance that organization gives you while in-country, and more to what you see and learn from the locals. You will start to see first-hand some of the results of our nation's foreign policy.
In spite of your obvious beliefs to the contrary, I do not belive we are an evil people, or an evil nation. Those who have for several decades monopolized control of our nation's political affairs, however, are another matter altogether.
Now it's my turn to recommend some literature for you, and I will not merely point you to a library card catalog in a far away city. You can either purchase these or find them at your local library for free:
- War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, by Chris Hedges
- Theater of War, by Lewis Lapham
- Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, by Gore Vidal
-
Re:Ding!Oh come now, those links to the UN can be found in about 10 seconds. I gather from your remarks that you have read them? I doubt very much that is the case, but you can claim whatever you wish. The rest of us would be better off with links to actual documents, instead of to a library catalog. Unless you live in or near Manhattan, your links are relatively useless. You included them in your post merely for cosmetic effect, that much is obvious.
The rest of us "type 3 morons" (as you call us in another post) would find links to actual documents much more useful, such as the UN charter and the security council's resolutions (including 1441.
What is really objectionable about this and others of your posts, more so than your harsh tone, shallow arguments, and your laughable attempts at appearing documented, is your claim that I am anti-American because I don't blindly support military action as the centerpiece mechanism for getting things done in the world. I can only assume you are still in middle- or high-school, not only from the tone and content of your posts, but because if you were much older, it would be clearer to you that war does not accomplish what it promises. If you can glean a single insight from 20th century history, that would be it. Also, I strongly urge you to do one or two years of volunteer work in some third world country, it doesn't really matter which one. Choose any organization you like, a religious organization, the peace corps, whatever. Pay less attention to the guidance that organization gives you while in-country, and more to what you see and learn from the locals. You will start to see first-hand some of the results of our nation's foreign policy.
In spite of your obvious beliefs to the contrary, I do not belive we are an evil people, or an evil nation. Those who have for several decades monopolized control of our nation's political affairs, however, are another matter altogether.
Now it's my turn to recommend some literature for you, and I will not merely point you to a library card catalog in a far away city. You can either purchase these or find them at your local library for free:
- War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, by Chris Hedges
- Theater of War, by Lewis Lapham
- Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, by Gore Vidal
-
Re:Ding!Oh come now, those links to the UN can be found in about 10 seconds. I gather from your remarks that you have read them? I doubt very much that is the case, but you can claim whatever you wish. The rest of us would be better off with links to actual documents, instead of to a library catalog. Unless you live in or near Manhattan, your links are relatively useless. You included them in your post merely for cosmetic effect, that much is obvious.
The rest of us "type 3 morons" (as you call us in another post) would find links to actual documents much more useful, such as the UN charter and the security council's resolutions (including 1441.
What is really objectionable about this and others of your posts, more so than your harsh tone, shallow arguments, and your laughable attempts at appearing documented, is your claim that I am anti-American because I don't blindly support military action as the centerpiece mechanism for getting things done in the world. I can only assume you are still in middle- or high-school, not only from the tone and content of your posts, but because if you were much older, it would be clearer to you that war does not accomplish what it promises. If you can glean a single insight from 20th century history, that would be it. Also, I strongly urge you to do one or two years of volunteer work in some third world country, it doesn't really matter which one. Choose any organization you like, a religious organization, the peace corps, whatever. Pay less attention to the guidance that organization gives you while in-country, and more to what you see and learn from the locals. You will start to see first-hand some of the results of our nation's foreign policy.
In spite of your obvious beliefs to the contrary, I do not belive we are an evil people, or an evil nation. Those who have for several decades monopolized control of our nation's political affairs, however, are another matter altogether.
Now it's my turn to recommend some literature for you, and I will not merely point you to a library card catalog in a far away city. You can either purchase these or find them at your local library for free:
- War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, by Chris Hedges
- Theater of War, by Lewis Lapham
- Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, by Gore Vidal
-
Re:Ding!Just to show how much you really are in the dark I'm going to keep this one simple.
rant
\Rant\, n. High-sounding language, without importance or dignity of thought; boisterous, empty declamation; bombast; as, the rant of fanatics.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Given that I would like to point you to a url that will give you a plethora of information on what your basing your argument on.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/pathfind/lawint/0701.h tm
http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/pathfind/lawint/0700.h tm
Here you can educate yourself and possibly others on the facts vs. the rhetoric. I'm sure you have never read any of these articles and I hope you find them useful. In addition I think there is sufficient argument to label you as anti American. You may not realize it but your using the same prefabricated lies that have been conjured up by the enemy himself. This either makes you very dumb or a seditionist. In either case at least come back with a point or real truths as to why you think this war should not be fought. I will give you there are reasons why not to fight if you should happen to dig one up let me know. -
Re:Ding!Just to show how much you really are in the dark I'm going to keep this one simple.
rant
\Rant\, n. High-sounding language, without importance or dignity of thought; boisterous, empty declamation; bombast; as, the rant of fanatics.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Given that I would like to point you to a url that will give you a plethora of information on what your basing your argument on.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/pathfind/lawint/0701.h tm
http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/pathfind/lawint/0700.h tm
Here you can educate yourself and possibly others on the facts vs. the rhetoric. I'm sure you have never read any of these articles and I hope you find them useful. In addition I think there is sufficient argument to label you as anti American. You may not realize it but your using the same prefabricated lies that have been conjured up by the enemy himself. This either makes you very dumb or a seditionist. In either case at least come back with a point or real truths as to why you think this war should not be fought. I will give you there are reasons why not to fight if you should happen to dig one up let me know. -
Re:American re-educationDon't even remember that America is a nation of immigrants and the first white settlers sailed over from an intolerant England.
Believe me, we're well aware that we're a nation of immigrants, almost all of whom came here to escape persecution and autocracy. We pride ourselves on it. It's a motivating factor in our attempts to bring peace and democracy to the rest of the world, and to defend the system that other nations envy.
What right does America have to interfere there?
What right does America have? The right to defend ourselves. Besides, there's this:
"33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the above provisions, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);
34. Decides to remain seized or the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the region. "
-
Re:Humane ConsiderationsAlthough you and I disagree, you distinguish yourself by actually going back and reading 687. I've gone back a little further and read the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which the US is a signatory. Especially Article VI, which states:
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
Which, since treaties submitted by the President and ratified by the Senate are (along with the Constitution) the supreme law of the land, means that the US is obligated to work with the community of nations to achieve nuclear disarmament. Obviously, a nation announcing a policy of utilizing nuclear weapons in "preemptive" wars is in breach of Article VI. Meanwhile, the US develops chemical and biological weapons in violation of the spirit (and likely the letter) of the protocols on biological and chemical weapons. (Oh, and let's not forget that weapons-grade anthrax was left unsecured so that a person or persons unknown could kill two postal workers and attempt to kill the then-Senate Majority Leader and Judiciary Committee Chair.)
Iraq's breaches of these protocols which the US itself does not seem to care for were the prime mover behind the adoption of 687. Despite the fact that the US undermined implementation of 687 by inserting spies into the inspection teams, UNSCOM destroyed 90 - 95% of Iraq's WMD capability prior to the UNSCOM inspectors being forced to leave Iraq by President Clinton prior to Operation Desert Fox. Had inspections not been compromised and finally halted, Iraq would likely be disarmed by now. Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration and the Bush Junta both declared "regime change" as official policy, meaning that sanctions would likely have continued against Iraq regardless of its compliance with 687. Great motivator for Hussein to disarm -- damned if you do, damned if you don't. Outside his palace walls, of course, the populace is getting sick from water-borne diseases because the sanctions regime will not allow chlorine to be imported into Iraq for any purpose. And we haven't even mentioned yet that Israel's
nuclear weapons program should be dismantled under 687 as well, since it reaffirms the goal of ridding the region of nuclear weapons, nor that US aid to Israel, a non-signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is illegal because of their nuclear weapons program. Nor should we leave out the fact that the so-called "no-fly zones" are not authorized by 687.
Now, if the US wishes to change policy and- work seriously toward nuclear disarmament;
- abide by the biological and chemical weapons conventions;
- repudiate "preemptive" war plans;
- repudiate "regime change" doctrine;
- cease interference with the inspections process;
- acknowledge the Israeli nuclear program and cut off aid until it can be inspected and dismantled;
- work seriously toward nuclear disarmament;
-
Re:UN shmoo-NOne would HOPE that the UN would be laying the groundwork for something useful, like world-wide civil rights, healthcare standards, public health, preventing hunger
The United Nations Population Fund (link)
Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS (link)
United Nations Children's Fund aka UNICEF (link)
UN's work on women's rights (link)
UN Commission on Sustainable Development (link)
United Nations Environment Programme (link)
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (link)
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (link)
One would HOPE that
that posters have a vague familiarity with the UN before launching such a broadside. -
Re:UN shmoo-NOne would HOPE that the UN would be laying the groundwork for something useful, like world-wide civil rights, healthcare standards, public health, preventing hunger
The United Nations Population Fund (link)
Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS (link)
United Nations Children's Fund aka UNICEF (link)
UN's work on women's rights (link)
UN Commission on Sustainable Development (link)
United Nations Environment Programme (link)
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (link)
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (link)
One would HOPE that
that posters have a vague familiarity with the UN before launching such a broadside. -
Re:Good idea... bordering on brilliant
Although both principles do have equal weight, the second is impossible without the first one, "acknnowledgement of the sovereignity and territorial integrity" of __all__ states in the area cannot be accomplished until Israel moves out of the Palestinian territories. How could the Palestinians not be at war against a country which is occupying its territory?? Both principles have equal weight, but one cannot happen without the other happening first.
Also, you should check this resolution from the General Assembly, stating among other things that Israel must:
- Withdraw from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem
- Dismantling the Israeli settlements in the territories occupied since 1967
138 countries voted in favor of that resolution, only two countries voted against it... guess who: Israel and the United States
Of course the Palestinians must not be at war against Israel... but only when Israel leaves _their_ country.
-
Re:Good idea... bordering on brilliant
There was a UN resolution telling Israel to move out of the occupied territories. Israel has obviously not moved out, and while many countries have said it should, the US just lets Israel do whatever they want.
Please read the resolution. Security Council resoluton 242 does call for:
"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict"
but it also calls for:
"Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area"
The resolution also put equal weight on these 2 principles. The Arabs are still at war with Israel and refuse to make peace, so Israel hasn't withdrawn from the territories.
(Yes, Egypt and Jordan are at peace with Israel, but they're the only ones) -
The UN thinks otherwise
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. -
The important things in life
The important things in life?
Well right up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your life without being forced to live your life under an oppressive surveillance society. For it surely is oppressive, knowing this information could be used against you for any purpose the authorities wish.
This is quite part from the minor fact it is very leaky - example seen here in UK news today: Revenue staff selling tax secrets. Quote, "There have been a number of instances of celebrity-browsing or looking up details of family or friends out of idle curiosity. But there is also evidence that some people are using the information maliciously, for example finding out how much an ex-spouse earns and passing the information to the Child Support Agency, or even selling the information to outside agencies. This is a clear breach of customer confidentiality and the Data Protection Act."
The main thing is this - Not enough importance is placed on our Liberty.
Why can't everybody see the blatant use of propaganda, when it is so clear?
I have placed the following on this board many times - the regulars must be sick of it by now - sorry for that
Subject - Ask Security Services to deny this:
First - a quote from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: "The goal of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program is to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists -- and decipher their plans -- and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts."
The declared GOAL is to, quote: "identify foreign terrorists" - what rubbish. They know you are American citizen, not even a suspect foreigner - yet want to know what you buy, where you travel - everything. They want to profile you, like a criminal. I find it hard to believe that U.S. politicians are that dumb to go along with this violation of the American Peoples Rights. Looks like TIA initials stand for Totally Ignorant Acceptance (for their propaganda).
Okay then -
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?
It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.
The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.
e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said they want, quote: "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".
Do they keep record of all the people that you send letters and faxes to (and receive from)? Worse still - record the text? Do they record your phone conversations? Do they keep a record of peoples houses, shops and establishments you visit - or the magazines and books you pick up to browse? Do they keep record of books you take out of library? Do they keep record of purchases you make from the shops?
Indeed - do government currently keep records of everything that you say, touch and do in the physical world to analyse?
No they do not. So then - is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender - a child molester that they have to keep track of.
Would ANY person of intelligence call that accountability?
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.
In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything. It would be like having a spy living in your house.
Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are generally more technologically aware, are you really that easily misled?
I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them. I know from experience, as fact, they have no morals and will purposefully twist this information to use against you. I have documentary evidence of this - actual government agency case notes. Should government take legal action to deny that they pervert how personal information is used, then these documents may be viewed in a court of Law.
It should be noted that the UK government will be violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which we have adopted.
Article 12 states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." -
Re:Just a thought..
Thank you.
This point should be repeated until there is no doubt, The Bill of Rights in the constitution was not a granting of rights, but rather a recocgition of them. Dumb Socialist teachers seemed to have brainwashed generations of children to believe that the Bill or Rights is a list of rights that the government is to protect. This is not correct. The Bill of Rights is a statement of rights held by people that the governments of the United States may not interfere with.
To anyone who thinks this is an unimportant distinction, well before I suggest you move to China, I suggest you read the so called "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" here and marvel at its impotence. This is because it has an inherent flaw. It dictates the actions of others and not itself. The US constitution recocgnizes that the greatest power one has is over one's own actions and doesn't try to dictate things that it has no power to control, but rather constrains the scope of its own authority.
The US government cannot for instance force me to let you in to my home to talk to me just because you have a right to speech. I would burn down my home first. But the government can pledge to respect your right and not keep you from public places so you can say what you wish.
Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's, for the rest is not his.
That is what is so powerful about the Bill of Rights and so weak about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Bill of Rights says "Congress shall make no law
So when people tell you that the Bill of Rights is a list of people's rights that are protected, ask them, from whom or from what are we being protected.
-
Re:Just a thought..
Sue your teachers.
There is, at its heart, no difference between philosophy and politics.
A government which infringes on basic human rights loses its legitimacy. Ergo the founding of our republic. Need I refer you to the source material?
You are saying that there is no arguing with whatever is written in whatever document is held to be the law of the land. However, our history tells us otherwise. Common sense, and a shared sense of basic principles overrides any governmental decree.
You may claim this means moral relativism, or leads to anarchy, but yet I am right, and it has not. Rather, it led to the founding of our country. The principles and mechanisms by which such basic priority operates are fluid and unreliable, but the world is not a CPU.
I'll repeat what Malor said, because it's absolutely correct, and understanding its meaning in the very core of your being is essential to your dignity as a human being. "[basic] freedoms ARE NOT GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT."
I'll reiterate my earlier point, because I can already hear the pedants clawing at their cages. This does not mean moral relativism. Just merely that we are never "bound" in any legal sense by a "government" which infringes on basic human rights which have been held, across most of earth's cultures, to be fundamental and universal. If you want to pretend there is no agreement on what a human right is, don't waste our time, or pretend it matters that there is no absolute agreement. Take a look at, for instance, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights if you're confused. -
Re:Emergency procedures* Coastal States exercise sovereignty over their territorial sea which they have the right to establish its breadth up to a limit not to exceed 12 nautical miles; foreign vessels are allowed "innocent passage" through those waters;
* Ships and aircraft of all countries are allowed "transit passage" through straits used for international navigation; States bordering the straits can regulate navigational and other aspects of passage;
These are two points from the Law of the Sea treaty recognized by the UN. The countries also have a 200 naut. mile Exclusive Economic Zone to which they have exclusive rights to regulate the natural resources. Being that its an international treaty there are all sorts of exceptions and finer points but that's the basic gist of it. As for blocking ships from entering a countries waters, generaly it's up to the individual port to decide whether they'll allow a ship to enter their port although depending on the manifest a country my intercede but not usualy.
-
Re:Historical rationale for blocking the website..but it doesn't seem grotesque at all, in context
Maybe, maybe not. I object equally to the context and in doing so the rituals comes across as strange and primitive. Your comment in general is very well written though. I just picked the Christian ritual as an example since most people on
I find it hard to understand how intelligent reflective people can accept religion at face value. I understand the need for us as humans to have some rules to play by thereby enhancing our survivability as a specie, but I find the dogma intolerable.
If we want sacred texts the UN declaration of human rights, or the US Constitution are far better than some obnoxious books like the Bible or the Koran.
-
Re:Too vague?
-
Re:"Open Source" Knowledge
According to the United Nations Stastics Division in 2001 9.71% of the world's population had internet access.
Last spring nua reported the figure went over 10% (news coverage).
Some sources like eMarketer give more conservative estimates, but the essential fact is that the internet continues to grow. By the time this nvo thing goes live considerably more people will have internet access.
The internet does provides access to info and educational opportunities for hundreds of millions of people. Don't be too cynical.
-
Re:Good intentions, but...
lol. I guess I had a language block. That's actually the German spelling. What I was referring to is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
-
Re:Extradition? - ICC
You don't know what you're talking about. The International Criminal Court is only concerned with "mass crimes" against humanity, especially this committed by by states.
Try reading ICC Jurisdiction:
1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes: (a) The crime of genocide; (b) Crimes against humanity; (c) War crimes; (d) The crime of aggression. -
Re:Correction
Iraq agreed to a cease fire that requires it to, among other things, destroy all chemical/biological weapons, destroy all ballistic missiles (range >150km), agree to submit to on-site inspections, return all property stolen from Kuwait, agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons (and agree to inspections to verify this), and pay reparations for losses caused by the invasion of Kuwait.
Read (PDFs, sorry) United Nations Resolution 687 , which spells out Iraq's obligations, and Resolution 707, which "demands" that Iraq implement Resolution 687, as it had agreed to.
It should be mentioned that as of this date Iraq has still not implemented any of these conditions. -
Re:Correction
Iraq agreed to a cease fire that requires it to, among other things, destroy all chemical/biological weapons, destroy all ballistic missiles (range >150km), agree to submit to on-site inspections, return all property stolen from Kuwait, agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons (and agree to inspections to verify this), and pay reparations for losses caused by the invasion of Kuwait.
Read (PDFs, sorry) United Nations Resolution 687 , which spells out Iraq's obligations, and Resolution 707, which "demands" that Iraq implement Resolution 687, as it had agreed to.
It should be mentioned that as of this date Iraq has still not implemented any of these conditions. -
Re:They will never stop.
Please do not equate civil disobedience and P2P. Civil disobedience is essentially something you do in the open with the intention of getting caught and possibly prosecuted.
If you want to learn about what civil disobedience really is, check this or this out.
If you think that the Internet is the most active battlefield today, you need to visit a few places. -
Re:only 100 sites
There is no global absolute ethics. Ethics is a set of moral rules.
I see. Out understanding of those concepts is different. For me, ethics is a set of rational rules that individuals establish in order to get along (e.g. the rules on which the declaration of human rights is based upon). On the other side, morals is a set of commonly accepted rules created by a group in a natural, evolutive way, which are fine tuned in time.
Since no two groups of individuals are the same, morals will also never be the same. However ethics are, for they represent an agreement between different groups.
Would it be right to let those people state their opinions, even risking a 4th Reich?
That is something they have to decide for themselves. So far they have chosen not to.
Is free speech one of the prime ethical requirement?
I believe so. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that " Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. "
It is about ethics, not morals.
-
Re:Ok Ok Ok!!!
They probably don't... but these sites do:
http://www.mideastweb.org/palmaps.htm
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpal/pal_maps.htm
http://www.stanford.edu/~bgiddens/maps.htm
Maybe that will help if you're honest with your question and really wanted to know. -
Re:Yay China!
-
Re:Asimov's first law
It would take an obscene amount of money to feed everyone that is starving in the world, provide the infrastructure necessary to send the food everywhere it needs to go, and insure that they will be able to provide for themselves in the future
Actually, that all exists already. There is already way too much food in the world - the US and EU destroy millions of tonnes of it every year. After all, food surpluses are a precondition of population growth, not the other way round, and the population is growing.
Growing the food is easy - our civilization understood farming centuries ago. Distributing the food is easy - logistics is a well-developed science, practiced by Walmat, UPS and the Marines, you can even do a degree in it. The difficult part is purely in the realm of the political. So long as tyrants like Robert Mugabe use starvation as a tool of population control, or nations like Somalia keep feudal civil wars going, famines are inevitable.
These are the men with just enough "obscene amount of money", but have failed to act.
The Gates Foundation has given billions away. Literally. What have you done?
3,000,000 counts of manslaughter per year.
If you really believed that, you wouldn't have a computer to post to
-
Re:Wales? c'mon.The United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and Dependent Territories
And which website was that from, then? Try something like the United Nations, or the CIA World factbook.. The name comes from the Act Of Union in 1801, when it was titled the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". After partition, the name was changed to reflect the change to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
Being part of the British Isles is irrelevant, as Eire is also part of the British Isles and no longer forms any part of Great Britain or the UK. The other dependancies that you mention are part of Great Britain (the names - British Indian Ocean Territory, etc) often give a suble clue to this. You seem to be mixing geographical (British Isles) with political (Great Britain). The latter includes all of the dependent territories that you mentioned.
For instance Bermuda.
"Bermuda is one of the fourteen (14) Overseas Territories of Britain." It's part of Britain, not just the UK. -
Re:Wales? c'mon.
Close... Actually, England and Scotland are seperate countries.
Odd...Neither the CIA Country Factbook nor the UN Stat. Division lists Scotland as a country.
-
Re:No big surprise there.
Thinking that the US is at the root of the problems in Israel is absurd (the US is certainly not innocent in this of course). The British actually started the whole thing with the Balfour declaration back in 1917. The UN partitioning did not erase Palestine, in fact it was much larger than it is today. Palestine never even had an indepedent state prior to this. The British were in control of the territory prior to this. The Ottoman empire in control prior to that. The whole thing is a f'ing mess, had everyone just agreed to the partitioning everything would be fine, but neither side will let the other have anything.
-
Re:No big surprise there.
Thinking that the US is at the root of the problems in Israel is absurd (the US is certainly not innocent in this of course). The British actually started the whole thing with the Balfour declaration back in 1917. The UN partitioning did not erase Palestine, in fact it was much larger than it is today. Palestine never even had an indepedent state prior to this. The British were in control of the territory prior to this. The Ottoman empire in control prior to that. The whole thing is a f'ing mess, had everyone just agreed to the partitioning everything would be fine, but neither side will let the other have anything.
-
Re:No big surprise there.
Thinking that the US is at the root of the problems in Israel is absurd (the US is certainly not innocent in this of course). The British actually started the whole thing with the Balfour declaration back in 1917. The UN partitioning did not erase Palestine, in fact it was much larger than it is today. Palestine never even had an indepedent state prior to this. The British were in control of the territory prior to this. The Ottoman empire in control prior to that. The whole thing is a f'ing mess, had everyone just agreed to the partitioning everything would be fine, but neither side will let the other have anything.
-
Re:Girls best friend?
These diamonds are a girl's best friend. If it doesn't help perpetuate poverty and strife, it's not a real diamond. Just ask DeBeers.
-
Re:This news about India isn't that cool
A good link for everybody that disagrees: Est. % of population with access to improved sanitation facilities in rural India is 14%.
Why is it that people find it more important to research into going to the moon then research on how to build toilets? It doesn't make any economic sense unless you have a toilet and love it when people aren't allowed to look up to you on the street. -
Re:Google removing listing big stink
The UN's Universal Declaration of Human rights states:
"Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
All countries who are members of the UN are supposed to uphold these rights (although, they frequently are ignored). It's not just an American ideal. -
Re:Gave away the Golan Heights?
You obviously either do not know what it is you speak of, or have been misinformed somewhere along the line. The fact of the matter is that Israel has the best-equipped and most powerful (if not largest) army in the whole area. They started it by stealing from the British when they were the mandatory power over Palestine (all of it, before it was Palestine and Israel). Furthermore, Israel used these forces to invade the surrounding areas. This never really bothered the British because their whole involvement in the first place was to set up a friendly government to invade Egypt and basically give them control of the Suez Canal.
Maybe you should do a little research. Here is not a bad place to start:
The Origins And Evolution Of The Palestine Problem 1917-1988
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV -
Re:Gave away the Golan Heights?
You obviously either do not know what it is you speak of, or have been misinformed somewhere along the line. The fact of the matter is that Israel has the best-equipped and most powerful (if not largest) army in the whole area. They started it by stealing from the British when they were the mandatory power over Palestine (all of it, before it was Palestine and Israel). Furthermore, Israel used these forces to invade the surrounding areas. This never really bothered the British because their whole involvement in the first place was to set up a friendly government to invade Egypt and basically give them control of the Suez Canal.
Maybe you should do a little research. Here is not a bad place to start:
The Origins And Evolution Of The Palestine Problem 1917-1988
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV -
Re:Gave away the Golan Heights?
You obviously either do not know what it is you speak of, or have been misinformed somewhere along the line. The fact of the matter is that Israel has the best-equipped and most powerful (if not largest) army in the whole area. They started it by stealing from the British when they were the mandatory power over Palestine (all of it, before it was Palestine and Israel). Furthermore, Israel used these forces to invade the surrounding areas. This never really bothered the British because their whole involvement in the first place was to set up a friendly government to invade Egypt and basically give them control of the Suez Canal.
Maybe you should do a little research. Here is not a bad place to start:
The Origins And Evolution Of The Palestine Problem 1917-1988
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV -
Re:Gave away the Golan Heights?
You obviously either do not know what it is you speak of, or have been misinformed somewhere along the line. The fact of the matter is that Israel has the best-equipped and most powerful (if not largest) army in the whole area. They started it by stealing from the British when they were the mandatory power over Palestine (all of it, before it was Palestine and Israel). Furthermore, Israel used these forces to invade the surrounding areas. This never really bothered the British because their whole involvement in the first place was to set up a friendly government to invade Egypt and basically give them control of the Suez Canal.
Maybe you should do a little research. Here is not a bad place to start:
The Origins And Evolution Of The Palestine Problem 1917-1988
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV -
Re:Yo-ho-ho
Article 101 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea defines piracy as any of the following acts:
"(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:
(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;
(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b)."
Where a "pirate ship or aircraft" is any ship or aircraft whose commanders intend to use it for act of piracy.
Now, in 1967, Roy Bates (aka Prince Roy of Sealand) landed on an abandoned WW2 British anti-aircraft gun platform, called Roughs Tower, in international waters, and declared it the Principality of Sealand as an independent soverign state.
It doesn't seem to me that he's committed an act of piracy (as defined above.) What do you think?
matey
