Slashdot Mirror

Rule by Decree revisited,

Article 74: Statutes whose abrogation are requested on the initiative of a number of voters constituting at least 10% of the voters registered in the civil and electoral registry, or by the President* of the Republic taken at a meeting of the Cabinet, shall be submitted to a referendum for its abrogation in whole or in part. Decrees with the force of law issued by the President of the Republic, making use of the authority prescribed under article 236, section 8 of this Constitution, may also be submitted to an abrogatory referendum, when it is requested by a number of voters constituting at least 5% of the total number of voters registered in the civil and electoral registry. In order for the abrogatory referendum to be valid, a number of voters constituting at least 40% of the total number of voters registered in the civil and electoral registry shall be essential. It shall not be possible to submit budget laws to an abrogatory referendum, neither those establishing or modifying taxes, relating to public credit, to amnesty, the protection, guaranteeing and developing human rights, nor those which ratify international treaties. There shall not be more than one abrogatory referendum on the same matter during the same constitutional term.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Vene zuela#TITLE_IV_PUBLIC_POWER

You got the rating, now where is the informative reference? Newspaper articles? Historical accounts? Can you please supply a link?

To what specifically? You ask, I will provide.

I want to know, because should I be worried that he is trying to get his term limits removed

Yes, that is definitely a tendency towards Dictatorship. The people will need to fight that.

that he can currently rule by decree

Well, the Venezuelan Constitution is clear on that.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Vene zuela

Article 74: Statutes whose abrogation are requested on the initiative of a number of voters constituting at least 10% of the voters registered in the civil and electoral registry, or by the President* of the Republic taken at a meeting of the Cabinet, shall be submitted to a referendum for its abrogation in whole or in part. Decrees with the force of law issued by the President of the Republic, making use of the authority prescribed under article 236, section 8 of this Constitution, may also be submitted to an abrogatory referendum, when it is requested by a number of voters constituting at least 5% of the total number of voters registered in the civil and electoral registry. In order for the abrogatory referendum to be valid, a number of voters constituting at least 40% of the total number of voters registered in the civil and electoral registry shall be essential. It shall not be possible to submit budget laws to an abrogatory referendum, neither those establishing or modifying taxes, relating to public credit, to amnesty, the protection, guaranteeing and developing human rights, nor those which ratify international treaties. There shall not be more than one abrogatory referendum on the same matter during the same constitutional term.

Next..

that he is not renewing the license of an anti-Hugo television station.

What do you want specifically on that one? How they assisted in the coup? I can compile some videos for you but it's going to take some time. The Revolution will not be Televised does a good job, watch that and research this on your own.

Which of these is the red light?

There are tendencies toward dictatorship and democracy. The people are the only ones who can decide what to do, and we know what they think. They support him overwhelmingly.

A television station that does not think Hugo is all sunshine and roses is no longer in service for no good reason I can discover and is being replaced by a government run station.

You omit many facts my friend.

Well, except he does not like the soaps..."He called the station's soap operas "pure poison" that promote capitalism, according to AP."

I agree with him, although I think they should be free to choose what to watch.

Authors of literary and artistic works protected by [the Berne Convention] shall enjoy the exclusive right of making and of authorizing the translation of their works throughout the term of protection of their rights in the original works.

To the Most High and Mighty Prince
James
By the Grace of God
King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland,
Defender of the Faith, &c.

It's important to note that CALEA doesn't apply to "information services" or "electronic messaging services", only "telecommunications". Here are the relevant parts of the actual law:

SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this title--
[...]
(4) The term `electronic messaging services' means software-based services that enable the sharing of data, images, sound, writing, or other information among computing devices controlled by the senders or recipients of the messages.
[...]
(6) The term `information services'--
(A) means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications; and
(B) includes--
(i) a service that permits a customer to retrieve stored information from, or file information for storage in, information storage facilities;
(ii) electronic publishing; and
(iii) electronic messaging services;
[...]
(b) LIMITATIONS-
[...]
(2) INFORMATION SERVICES; PRIVATE NETWORKS AND INTERCONNECTION SERVICES AND FACILITIES- The requirements of subsection (a) do not apply to--
(A) information services
[...]

This law actually makes a special exception for encrypted data:

Section 103(b)(3) ENCRYPTION- A telecommunications carrier shall not be responsible for decrypting, or ensuring the government's ability to decrypt, any communication encrypted by a subscriber or customer, unless the encryption was provided by the carrier and the carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the communication.

Full text here.

"The basis for IP is in fact based in Article 1 of the constitution:

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries""

Sorry, but that's not historically accurate. The first copyright law was the Statute of Anne in 1709:

"An act for the encouragement of learning, by vesting the copies of printed books in the authors or purchasers of such copies, during the times therein mentioned.

"I. Whereas printers, booksellers, and other persons have of late frequently taken the liberty of printing, reprinting, and publishing, or causing to be printed, reprinted, and published, books and other writings, without the consent of the authors or proprietors of such books and writings, to their very great detriment, and too often to the ruin of them and their families: for preventing therefore such practices for the future, and for the encouragement of learned men to compose and write useful books;"

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne

Please look beyond the borders of the United States for history - there really is a world out there, and they really did come up with some concepts first.

Ok, that's the `keep the nerds happy with something to do with copyright` box checked.

1. WAIVE THE COPYRIGHT AND PLACE IT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN , or barring that,
2. place it under (SPECIFICALLY) the Creative Commons (Attribution) license. (Yes he specified one: http://creativecommons.org.nyud.net:8080/licenses/ by/3.0/ , if it's down, here's Wikisource of v2.5 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_Att ribution_2.5#English )

Remember that the term of copyright was only extended in the US. In China the protection term is still life+50years for personally owned works or 50 years since publication for companies. The film is public domain in China. (Incidentally a film published in 1937 is also public domain in Australia.)

Non-consitutional?

You may want to check out these links:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/British_North_Americ a_Act%2C_1867
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_ Rights_and_Freedoms

Non-consitutional?

You may want to check out these links:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/British_North_Americ a_Act%2C_1867
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_ Rights_and_Freedoms

This is insightful?

If I posted "Just because Windows 98 has lots of security holes doesn't mean OpenBSD/FreeBSD/NetBSD is any more secure. I'm pretty sure that's true. I'll have to do some research to back this up", would I really get modded insightful?

From the actual text of GCIII (1949), Part 1, Article 2, para 3:

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

In other words, signatories are bound if a non-signatory abides by the convention, otherwise they aren't. Since beheading people, parading them on TV, and mass suicide bombings of civilians are clearly non-compliant with the Conventions, the US is not bound by GCIII as a matter of international law in dealing with al Qaeda or similar organizations.

That doesn't mean the US can do whatever it wants -- it's still not allowed to kill people it's captured, and UCMJ also applies.

It also doesn't prevent the US from abiding by GCIII, and here as a matter of personal opinion I think the administration was very unwise and set a foolish precedent. Your opinion may vary.

In Vietnam, for example, the US chose to treat North Vietnamese POW's under the Conventions, but not the Vietcong, even though neither force was abiding by the Geneva Conventions.

I think it's worse than your excellent post describes.

The Geneva Convention quite plainly says that if there is any doubt about whether a detainee qualifies as a POW, there is supposed to be a hearing on the question, in the form of a "competent tribunal" (literal term used in the Geneva Convention). Until that happens, detainees are supposed to be treated AS a prisoner of war with all the rights and priviledges therein. Period. Bush can't designate people "enemy combatants", because he obviously isn't a tribunal, and some of the people in Gitmo sure weren't being treated as the POWs they should have been.

People pointed this out from the very start, but Bush and his legal advisors just skipped that step until, finally, the Supreme Court forced them to follow it. Years after it should have happened, prisoners are finally getting their hearings, very slowly (and there is debate about whether they really qualify as "competent tribunals"). So, Bush et al. were indeed originally breaking the Geneva Convention, apparently did not know or think that they were (even though it's freaking obvious in Article V of the convention what should have been done), and they only started doing the right thing because they were legally forced to.

How is anybody in the world supposed to take Bush seriously when he talks about "freedom, liberty, and justice"? Yes, these are bad people in Gitmo, but so what? They don't deserve due process? That doesn't sound like "liberty and justice for all" to me, and some of the people involved were U.S. citizens.

Worse, what kind of precident does this set for the situation when U.S. or allied troops are captured by an enemy? Can some tinpot dictator somewhere else in the world be inspired to designate those prisoners as "enemy combatants" and deny them their rights as POWs? Or leave people in prison for indefinite periods of time without charge or hearings about their POW status? The whole thing jeapordizes the protections of the Geneva Conventions for OUR troops -- also something that military personel pointed out when this whole thing started.

So, I agree with you, except that while this travesty is bad now, I think it is potentially much worse in the future. If Bush et al. can twist the Geneva Conventions so perversely in a country with a strong history of freedom and rule of law, what do our troops have to look forward to someday in legally dubious nations that could be even more "creative" with their interpretation of the Geneva Convention?

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I'm looking, but I'm not able to find anything.

(c) ANONYMOUS WORKS, PSEUDONYMOUS WORKS, AND WORKS MADE FOR HIRE.--In the case of an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. If, before the end of such term, the identity of one or more of the authors of an anonymous or pseudonymous work is revealed in the records of a registration made for that work under subsections (a) or (d) of section 408, or in the records provided by this subsection, the copyright in the work endures for the term specified by subsection (a) or (b), based on the life of the author or authors whose identity has been revealed. Any person having an interest in the copyright in an anonymous or pseudonymous work may at any time record, in records to be maintained by the Copyright Office for that purpose, a statement identifying one or more authors of the work; the statement shall also identify the person filing it, the nature of that person's interest, the source of the information recorded, and the particular work affected, and shall comply in form and content with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.

"(c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks at Direction of Users.--

"(1) In general.--A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider--

"(A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;

"(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or

"(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;

"(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and

"(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.

but the math does still jive because, like all other aspects of the economy, military spending gets re-used.

but I don't think it is possible to make that comparison in an accurate way because of the vast differences between our economy and that of say, Rome.

America, on the other hand, does not directly acquire conquered lands or plunder resources/people.

One could probably argue that the benefits of trading with Germany and Japan made WWII a profitable venture.

Not to mention the fact that a strong military prevents or deters the thing that has destroyed countless economies throughout history: [losing] war.

I'm just trying to say that America's economy obviously is not struggling because of its military budget

Since a military can, and is, used to expand, improve, or shape the global economy in a manner favorable to the nation investing in it,

i believe that was decided in this case and this one and is also mentioned here.

...that the French had an aversion to things normal people like! Apparently they like stuff besides snails, frog's legs, and French military defeats!

Must I conclude from you half baked wrong arguments you are still pissed about being wrong about Irak?

In the name of France, and all the french people, I say "We're sorry."

Sorry for being right. Sorry for your not-so-funny comment. Sorry your life seem to be so miserable you need to hide it behind ill conceived contempt for the french.

And believe us, if is there something the french are immune to, it is contempt... You see, arrogance is so much in our DNA and culture you'll need talent to even attract anything from us but smiling frowns of pity for the average disdainful comment. (I'm not speaking of your above abysmal comment, of course. Please, check your facts and have some brain examination for a possible Hydrocephalus affliction)

You see, it's like a game, for us. The Brittish know that we like to argument for the sake of argument... And the other's utter humiliation. Not so dissimilar from Tauromachy. We, the french, take some fact, and go against the official trend saying something we know is true. (Note the we know is true part. It's important). And somehow, there is always some braindead macho man coming up with his "My own is longer than your's" challenge to defy us on our own grounds. And then, of course, the braindead monkey ridiculizes himself. Of course, even after admitting some semantic miscalculation, the victim can't still accept being in the bad end of an international joke, apparently everyone knowing it even before the beginning of the invasion.

And then, after all the efforts we put together, using our intelligence services, working night and day, trying not to spill the joke and contain our laughter, sending our most talented orators, having half the world agreeing with our viewpoint when you painfully put together your supporters, the only biting, acid, venomous answer you have is "Hey, I was told they eat frogs, Muah ah ah!" ???

WTF???

-- Yours truly, France, (very, very, very disappointed)

I'd like them to replace "In God we trust" from banknotes with "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle..."

I think "God" on banknotes means the god Mammon. The people in charge of the world's money obviously make that choice.

I'd like them to replace "In God we trust" from banknotes with "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle..."

One of the major cause of conflict in Africa and the Middle East is water. If you look a the land Israel is trying to control, you'll notice it's the one with access to water source. Palestinian and Syrian are well aware of this.

That is a very simplistic argument. Go and read the Hamas charter, expecially article 11: ... The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up...

ie Hamas believes the land belongs to them, and that it is a religious obligation to keep the land, and refuse to give it up under all circumstances. Further, Hamas refuses all negotiations. In article 13 it says: ...There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors...

So, Hamas says the land belongs 100% to them, is not willing to negotiate, and says the only solution is violence. Frankly, as long as Hamas exists (and other groups like them), there will be no peace in the middle east. The violence will continue until all of Hamas is dead or all the Israelis are dead.

The problem is water level in a lot of place are dangerously low. Saying global warming play no role in this is really stupid (if a theory can predict something, as it predicted water becoming scarce, there is a good chance the theory is true). Even if it's not the only cause, it certainly one of them.

The effect of global warming on fresh water supplies is complex. While some lands will be dried out further, the additional heat on the oceans will lead to additional evaporation and increased precipitation.

One of the major cause of conflict in Africa and the Middle East is water. If you look a the land Israel is trying to control, you'll notice it's the one with access to water source. Palestinian and Syrian are well aware of this.

That is a very simplistic argument. Go and read the Hamas charter, expecially article 11: ... The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up...

ie Hamas believes the land belongs to them, and that it is a religious obligation to keep the land, and refuse to give it up under all circumstances. Further, Hamas refuses all negotiations. In article 13 it says: ...There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors...

So, Hamas says the land belongs 100% to them, is not willing to negotiate, and says the only solution is violence. Frankly, as long as Hamas exists (and other groups like them), there will be no peace in the middle east. The violence will continue until all of Hamas is dead or all the Israelis are dead.

The problem is water level in a lot of place are dangerously low. Saying global warming play no role in this is really stupid (if a theory can predict something, as it predicted water becoming scarce, there is a good chance the theory is true). Even if it's not the only cause, it certainly one of them.

The effect of global warming on fresh water supplies is complex. While some lands will be dried out further, the additional heat on the oceans will lead to additional evaporation and increased precipitation.

One of the major cause of conflict in Africa and the Middle East is water. If you look a the land Israel is trying to control, you'll notice it's the one with access to water source. Palestinian and Syrian are well aware of this.

That is a very simplistic argument. Go and read the Hamas charter, expecially article 11: ... The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up...

ie Hamas believes the land belongs to them, and that it is a religious obligation to keep the land, and refuse to give it up under all circumstances. Further, Hamas refuses all negotiations. In article 13 it says: ...There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors...

So, Hamas says the land belongs 100% to them, is not willing to negotiate, and says the only solution is violence. Frankly, as long as Hamas exists (and other groups like them), there will be no peace in the middle east. The violence will continue until all of Hamas is dead or all the Israelis are dead.

The problem is water level in a lot of place are dangerously low. Saying global warming play no role in this is really stupid (if a theory can predict something, as it predicted water becoming scarce, there is a good chance the theory is true). Even if it's not the only cause, it certainly one of them.

The effect of global warming on fresh water supplies is complex. While some lands will be dried out further, the additional heat on the oceans will lead to additional evaporation and increased precipitation.

Follow up for the curious, See equal protection under the law which specifically grants the rights of the constituion to any person within the jurisdiction of the states.

So, no, the USA governement does not have the right to violate the rights of tourists.

Tom

To bring it back into focus.

Our country's full name is Canada not the Dominion of Canada. The British North America Act (1867) declares "the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly." (emphasis added)

In this context the word "dominion" means "nation".

The term "Dominion of Canada" was never officially recognized and has not been in regular use in government documents since the 50's or 60's so as not to intimidate our neighbour to the south.

Das Kapital is interesting, historically, but as as an economic theory it's based on realities nearly a century and a half out of date.

You should do some reading on Marxism instead of parroting Fox News and the neo-cons.

Property? I don't know where you live, but here in the United States, rights come from birth. What feudalistic society do you live in and why haven't you gotten around to freeing the serfs?

"It is interesting to note that the founding fathers met in closed doors."

As delegates from their state governments, they were not directly responsible to the people to begin with. There would be no reason for the people to have direct access as it was the state legislatures (the ones who still have the right to alter the constitution without any involvement from the federal government) they were held accountable by.

And once the document was crafted, it was placed before the popularly-elected state legislatures for ratification, who were directly responsible to the people, and there was heated debate before the court of public opinion on the matter, which is why three of your "Founding Fathers" got together and "acted for the camera" by writing a long series of letters "to the People of the State of New York."

And even then, the document presented to the state legislatures was ratified only on the condition that a bill of rights would be proposed by the First Congress (with publicly accountable Representatives), proposed by James "We don't need no stinkin' personal rights" Madison himself, and then ratified, again, by the popularly elected (and publicly accountable) state legislatures.

In the contest between public accountability and the "Divine Right of the Founding Fathers," republicanism won. Get over it.

"The beloved J. Alfred Prufrock said it best: "And so your Constitution, your Laws. They are naught but derivatives of English Common Law.""

What the fuck?!

I mean, couldn't you pull some bullshit Oscar Wilde quote out of your ass instead? Surely you could make something up and make it stick to him better than you can claim it came from a poem about a Slashdotter trying to meet women!

There is a transcript of this fine speech at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Software_and_Communi ty_in_the_Early_21st_Century.

From Wikisource:

Article 6:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

I'm in Russia, and I am an avid and price-sensitive media consumer. So let me make a prognosis.

1. Allofmp3.com will be closed, law or not, if the top of the government, i.e. Putin personally, orders it. Our government regularly follows such orders regardless of the law (by the way I'm not happy at all with it). The question is if Putin finds it fitting to "bow to the demands" of a foreign state, which I hope he will not, for the national pride reasons.

2. A slower solution that would satisfy the U.S. in the internet trade would be changing our Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights. Here it depends on the Duma, which I think will not act on this without a request from the executive branch (see above). (Even given such a request, Duma may decide to refuse to bow to external demands, or simply not see it a high priority in their lawmaking.)

3. "Keeping raids at the same level" is not going to stop domestic sale of unlicensed disks. I often hear staff of media outlets complaining about raids and mass confiscations of their stock, but all that it has achieved by now is intermittent supply of some quality DVD copies (like DVD-9 of obscure titles), and somewhat higher prices (at most +50%).

"the prospect of charging money for software was a crime against humanity." - Richard Stallman


Slight attribute bobble there. Let me fix it for you:

"[Richarm M Stallman] said that all software should be free and the prospect of charging money for software was a crime against humanity." -- Brian Reid

Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software. O'Reilly Media. ISBN 0-596-00287-4., chapter 6

``Techies Must Educate Governments''

While "must" is a bit strong, I agree it's a good idea. And so is voting for politicians who have a clue about the things you care about. In the upcoming elections (in the Netherlands - yes, that's what the stories about the voting machines were about), I'm probably going to be voting for some tech-savvy politician, rather than just for whatever party seems the best choice.

I've not decided which politician is getting my vote yet, but I know that at least Kees Vendrik (Dutch) (of GroenLinks) has done good things when it comes to computer-related issues, including filing the Motie Vendrik, which ``requests that the government ensure that by, 2006, all software used by the public sector supports open standards'' and ``requests the government to actively promote the use and development of open source software by the public sector''.

You phail civics.

"The US is a Federalist nation, built around the idea that the national government should have control over only what is absolutely necessary, and that the state should handle the rest."

So is Canada. And Australia, for that matter. Not to mention Switzerland, Argentina, etc.

Nowadays, I'd go so far to say that Canada is doing a better job at being federal than the United States is. The decision in Gonzales v. Raich was anything but federal in nature, and it's hard to see a Canadian federal court taking such a stance against a provincial government, even if it isn't Ontario.

"So the states each have the right to electoral votes in choosing the President,"

You got one right.

"but how the states choose their representatives and decide electoral votes before passing them on to Congress is up to the states."

But the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations. Article I, section 4. Federalist #59 has the explanation.

Read me.

You phail civics.

"The US is a Federalist nation, built around the idea that the national government should have control over only what is absolutely necessary, and that the state should handle the rest."

So is Canada. And Australia, for that matter. Not to mention Switzerland, Argentina, etc.

Nowadays, I'd go so far to say that Canada is doing a better job at being federal than the United States is. The decision in Gonzales v. Raich was anything but federal in nature, and it's hard to see a Canadian federal court taking such a stance against a provincial government, even if it isn't Ontario.

"So the states each have the right to electoral votes in choosing the President,"

You got one right.

"but how the states choose their representatives and decide electoral votes before passing them on to Congress is up to the states."

But the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations. Article I, section 4. Federalist #59 has the explanation.

Read me.

I think the reasons for fighting are nicely summed up here in Bin Laden's declaration of war against the Americans.

His job basically amounts to representative/propaganda roles because he doesn't have any significant executive powers. And he's certainly more competent at it than a couple of other politicians. Try his letter to Bush for a preview of what he's going to write there.

Actually it's a war crime to hide ammunition, weaponry and soldiers within villages and cities using civilians as human shields. It is not a war crime to strike areas in which civilians reside in this case, especially when they have been clearly warned to evacuate. It IS, on the other hand, a war crime to send rockets at civilian cities which are not in any way military targets.

Who did you say is comitting war crimes?

It isn't the Interstate Commerce clause that governs this (although that is a much abused section of the constitution).

Instead, it is Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution that governs this, spelling out what states can't do like coin money or engage in foreign policy.... without consent of congress. With congressional consent, any of this is possible. And it is done, too.

USC Title 4 Chapter 4 deals with the relationship of the Federal government and state governments, and there is a section that deals specifically with compacts that are related to law enforcement, strongly encouraging states to cooperate between each other for going after criminals. Unfortunately state compacts are otherwise not explicitly mentioned in terms of procedural matters of the subject.

I can't find much more about this at house.gov, although there are dozens of bills and laws that mention the state compacts as well. The current "hot button" related issue right now is a state compact with an American Indian tribe covering legal gambling. Doing a Google search will pull up a bunch more related bills and mentions of this topic.

About the ads: one of them, for example, had a teacher in class showing to the classroom a picture of a Dog, and asking how it was called. One kid answered "El perro!" (dog in spanish), and the teacher corrected him "El Gos, el Gos. Molt bè!", maybe I'm looking too much on it, but I think that implies that talking in spanish is incorrect. :-/

That implies both languages are official. Spanish and Catalonian are (if law is followed) strictly equal. If you know someone is going against art. 3 of the Constitution, go to a Court and fill a case against this crime. And is just as criminal to go against Spanish as going against Catalonian where they are both official.

And about the ad hominem: I'm not saying the happy family (PP + COPE + El Mundo) doesn't says some things that are true. But about this particular case, is difficult to find something not forged. And is a real shame, because I'd like to have a real right party, but right doesn't mean to get closer to extreme right. And the same could be said about the left parties (I don't put PSOE amongst them. They aren't there) when they get radical. I want a country were you don't have to say you vote some party without looking around searching possible 'angry looks'. And today, voting PP is looking for them. Not because the people that votes them aren't good people (some close familiars of mine vote them), but because their party's leaders behave like kids when they don't need it to erode the PSOE. Zapatero is doing enough things wrong (p.e. LPI, RTVE, ...), so the PP doesn't need to imagine new ones that can backfire. Can't Rajoy use the Salamanca papers much better than what he did? Why not say if this papers go there we want Zaragoza's art that's in Barcelona to go back to Zaragoza. And the same with the Bous from Majorca? This way they could be seen by all as a party that defends the whole people, not the party that only wants a fight whenever and wherever with the Government. But now they don't want to stop this fight that it's over (politically) throwing more shit with the 11M. It's their way, but I think they are wrong. A shame.

Oh, and cleaning Terra Mitica could help too.

P.S.: I'm sorry for the tone of the other post. But I'm tired of this stupid political fight we have in Spain.

does anybody know anything about Russian copyright laws? Do they have any?

Russian original | English translation.

The legal basis for allofmp3.com's operation is mostly buried at the end of the law, in the articles on "collective administration of economic rights".

The USSR signed the Berne convention in 1973, but specifically mentioned the convention was not to be applied retroactively. So all foreign works created before the joining date (some day in 1973, I don't remember) are in the public domain in Russia (who legally inherited the treaties the USSR made).

Their page is as dry as a bone so as to be just about unreadable. So they don't sound like a meandering unabomber they should learn how to better communicate their thoughts. When they come into power this had better be a major federal holiday.

guarantees free speech in the constitution (which is NOT typically guranteed in Europe)

"WHY IS NO ONE IN THE MEDIA ASKING THESE QUESTIONS?"

After 9/11 the Bush Administration was extremely successful in their "You are either with us or you are against us" strategy which painted anyone who questioned the Bush administration's actions, including journalists, as unpatriotic, or practically terrorists themselves. This is a classic propaganda and nationalism card and they played it very well. This campaign along with the general mood after 9/11 completely terrified journalists out of questioning anything the Bush administration did. Its just now starting to wear off because a few journalists are realizing they were played for complete suckers by the Bush administration.

Rupert Murdoch built Fox News to completely destroy the liberal media and independence in the news room and it worked. He single handedly turned news networks in to sensationalist propaganda tools for the executive branch, witness Fox's Tony Snow is now the press secretary. The fact Fox sky rocketed to #1 news network after 9/11 made all the other networks try to emulate them, not refute them. CNN is now an embarrassing Fox News parody, they aren't even good at it, so they are tanking. I can't stand watching CNN anymore. One liberal media outlet down. The Daily Show is the only liberal news outlet left and its a comedy show, parody. The best thing that could happen to American media right now would be for Time-Warner to sell CNN back to Ted Turner so he could rebuild a news network to challenge the Fox propaganda machine.

TV journalists are hired and rise through the network ranks based on how photogenic they are and on how much of a sycophant they are to both corprate executives, and politicians, not based on their ability as investigative journalists. The networks White House Correspondents and the Pentagon correspondents are just regurgitating the stuff the White House and the Pentagon want them to say on the TV that night. They are thinly veiled propaganda tools of the government. They don't do ANY independent investigation.

Most media outlets are now owned by large corporations thanks to consolidation, and most large corporations have no interest in investigative journalists who attack the government or stoke controversy that might cost them revenue or political good will.

One of the more disturbing invocations of state-secret privilege by George W. Bush was on November 1, 2001, when he signed Executive Order 13233. This order allows George W. to unilaterally prevent any access to his presidential papers for 12 years after he leaves office, unless he and only he authorizes it. Even if the sitting president authorizes it, he can still veto the release.

If its upheld, this should prevent future Congresses or courts from even seeing incriminating executive branch documents to investigate or charge him with illegal or unconstitutional acts, until 2020. Future Presidents can see them but can't release or act on them unless George W. authorizes it. You have to figure that a few weeks after 9/11, George W. was about to sign some orders to do some things that future governments might consider criminal or unconstitutional and his lawyers created this executive order so he could unilaterally obstruct any future investigations, even when he is no longer President. What might those acts be? Massive domestic spying on Americans without court approval, a prison on Gitmo outside the jurisdiction of any court, arresting American citizens without due process, authorization of torture by the military and CIA, secret prisons, launching an illegal war in Iraq based on a web of lies, dramatic expansion of the Rendition program to snatch people anywhere in the world, in violation of other nation's sovereignty to send people to secret prisons to be tortured?

Rendition is particularly apt in a discussion of state-secret privilege. It was used to kill a case brought by

I recall a redacted PDF from italy that 'supported' the US gov'ts claims at the time..

You are recalling this report, that the US army released as a PDF and was "cracked" within minutes by multiple sources. It disclosed the names of US soldiers who shot at an Italian car because (in short) they had placed a blocking position incompetently (in this map, you can see they placed the BP at the end of the highway exit lane, not where it starts), that the reason for their mission was John Negroponte's visit, and that US troops used VOIP to communicate (cheap bastards), which had failed to work that evening. The report also disclosed bunches of troop movements, and AFAIK (I did read it) its supposed-to-be-undisclosed part did not support any particular US claims.

Could he then use the power of his position to make his bumping off of the hobo confidential and be immune from any prosecution on the act?

"Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces."