After having seen Iraqi oil rigs on fire on CNN, I can now tell you Rumsfeld was not lying. Sorry to disappoint you, but by now I'm sure you are pissed about something else.
Hans Blix is a tool is my opinion. And yes, I think that the UN has become the League of Nations.
That Scuds are being launched from Iraq into Kuwait is based on what CNN and Rueters reported ealier today. I understand this fact is in now in dispute. I guess in your mind that means he poses no danger.
There are efforts underway to pinpoint the locations of his illegal munitions. If / when they are found, I suppose you will still think we are the bully.
In the end, Iraq will be liberated from the dictator, and the world will be safer for it. When Iraqi people have the right to vote, learn, travel, speak freely, and live without fear - I suppose you will not think the US has served any humanitian good. You think this is all about making money on oil, which is going down in price as I write this.
And if you think I'm a troll, I'll take that as a compliment. Flame on.
In '91 President Bush and UN coalition forces removed Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The UN did not target Saddam, and the US went along with the UN resolution. That's a fact. Go read a history book.
If it's a software problem tell them you're a hardware guy. If it's hardware tell them the opposite. Tell them you're a Unix guy and this is a windows box.
If that doesn't work, dink with the machine for five minutes and then get that "oh no" look on your face. "What's wrong" they will ask? You respond "You opened a greeting card attachment on an e-mail?". They will say "um, yeah. It was from your aunt." Sit quetly for at least fourty-five seconds. They will ask something during this time. Rub your chin.
And then say. "I dunno."
It's time to wean them. Make them do some homework. Give them a newbie tech site and tell them to read something that leads them to the solution. You know that you are still there as a safety net. If by the second or third time you see them they haven't figured it out, only then do you break down and help. Foster self-reliance by making them do it.
I'm reminded of a few(!) years ago when I was reading about development on the Atari 8-bit computers. A columnist for Analog magazine wrote about how he could not divulge certain information about memory mapping of the 400/800 computers because of his Non-Discolsure Agreement - BUT - that if he found out the same information from a third party he could then treat said information as public domain, and then was not bound by the NDA.
I would be interested in knowing if the knowledge shared here had slipped into the public domain, because if so then NDAs do not apply.
Before you get your panties in a wad - I posted this portion of the US Code in it's entirety here. I think for the sake of a Federal or military court these will be the lines of special import. It was not an effort to distort the meaning.
Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
(a)
A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality -
(1)
obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2)
taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3)
entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A)
such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
(B)
such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
(4)
(A)
accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or
(B)
accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
(5)
making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or
(6)
making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or
(7)
committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(b)
Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily
>>"You, like the fascists running our government these days..."
I'm not fascist. I'm just a guy who thinks the terrorists who are still planning attacks are the bad guys, not those who seek to stop them. The tone of what you have written suggests you feel otherwise.
Before you feel the need to lecture me on the law, you should read it.
Federal Code TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part III > Sec. 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
(2)
taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3)
entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A)
such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States....
Why do you assume Padilla is entitled to a criminal trial in state or federal court rather than a military tribunal? Before you say that one is fair and one is not, I'll remind you that many Americans in the 4 armed services are tried by military tribunal and get fair trials. And many Americans get screwed in civil coart.
It would be nice if you cared as much about the rights of people who would have been killed if Padilla's bomb attack had happened.
Yes there is. The crimes he is accussed of mean Padilla should be tried by the military. US citizens who serve in our armed forced are tried every day in military courts. If it's good enough for them....
>> The government has yet to prove he conspired against us as a terrorist. It's quite likely that he did. But his case will set a precedence for other cases in the near future, and I think it's important that there be a fully defined legal process to protect the innocent.
No argument here. I don't want to see an OJ style circus trial with lawyers who are out to win at all costs.
This man lost his rights as a US citizen when he traveled overseas and conspired with a foreign government to harm the United States. Read the fine print on your passport sometime. You can have your citizenship revoked for such actions. He is an enemy in a foriegn army. As such, it is appropriate for him to be tried by the military.
There is some very damning evidence that this piece of shit wanted to detonate a radiological device on our soil. This isn't "Free Kevin" time here. He's a fucking terrorist. And if he succeeded in doing what he intended, if my two little girls were dying of radiation poisoning, at least Morphine007 can sleep well that he wasn't denied due process.
For fuck's sake, can we get real about the fact this is a war?
Slashdot Mirror
After having seen Iraqi oil rigs on fire on CNN, I can now tell you Rumsfeld was not lying. Sorry to disappoint you, but by now I'm sure you are pissed about something else.
Yes, They were Scuds, and yes, the UN really is blind. And no, you really don't know what you are talking about.
AP Wire
Iraq is spelled with a Q. You did know that, didn't you?
Hans Blix is a tool is my opinion. And yes, I think that the UN has become the League of Nations.
That Scuds are being launched from Iraq into Kuwait is based on what CNN and Rueters reported ealier today. I understand this fact is in now in dispute. I guess in your mind that means he poses no danger.
There are efforts underway to pinpoint the locations of his illegal munitions. If / when they are found, I suppose you will still think we are the bully.
In the end, Iraq will be liberated from the dictator, and the world will be safer for it. When Iraqi people have the right to vote, learn, travel, speak freely, and live without fear - I suppose you will not think the US has served any humanitian good. You think this is all about making money on oil, which is going down in price as I write this.
And if you think I'm a troll, I'll take that as a compliment. Flame on.
Thanks for the link. I was just looking for that.
Don't forget that Saddam's troups are launching Scud missles that the UN promissed us he didn't have.
The UN has discredited itself. Hans Blix is a tool.
In '91 President Bush and UN coalition forces removed Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The UN did not target Saddam, and the US went along with the UN resolution. That's a fact. Go read a history book.
Well then just who the hell are you talking about?
I support the war.
LOL!
If it's a software problem tell them you're a hardware guy. If it's hardware tell them the opposite. Tell them you're a Unix guy and this is a windows box.
If that doesn't work, dink with the machine for five minutes and then get that "oh no" look on your face. "What's wrong" they will ask? You respond "You opened a greeting card attachment on an e-mail?". They will say "um, yeah. It was from your aunt." Sit quetly for at least fourty-five seconds. They will ask something during this time. Rub your chin.
And then say. "I dunno."
It's time to wean them. Make them do some homework. Give them a newbie tech site and tell them to read something that leads them to the solution. You know that you are still there as a safety net. If by the second or third time you see them they haven't figured it out, only then do you break down and help. Foster self-reliance by making them do it.
I'm reminded of a few(!) years ago when I was reading about development on the Atari 8-bit computers. A columnist for Analog magazine wrote about how he could not divulge certain information about memory mapping of the 400/800 computers because of his Non-Discolsure Agreement - BUT - that if he found out the same information from a third party he could then treat said information as public domain, and then was not bound by the NDA.
I would be interested in knowing if the knowledge shared here had slipped into the public domain, because if so then NDAs do not apply.
IANAL
Shame that you posted as an AC. If you post with a screenname I'll reply.
>> "(1) I (2) detect (3) selective quoting"
Before you get your panties in a wad - I posted this portion of the US Code in it's entirety here. I think for the sake of a Federal or military court these will be the lines of special import. It was not an effort to distort the meaning.
Actually, the burden for stipping a person of citizenship is rather high and very explicitly defined:
US CODE TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part III > Sec. 1481.
Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
(a)
A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality -
(1)
obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2)
taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3)
entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A)
such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
(B)
such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
(4)
(A)
accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or
(B)
accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
(5)
making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or
(6)
making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or
(7)
committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(b)
Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily
>>"You, like the fascists running our government these days..."
I'm not fascist. I'm just a guy who thinks the terrorists who are still planning attacks are the bad guys, not those who seek to stop them. The tone of what you have written suggests you feel otherwise.
Before you feel the need to lecture me on the law, you should read it.
Federal Code TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part III > Sec. 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
(2)
taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3)
entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A)
such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States....
Padilla will be tried.
Why do you assume Padilla is entitled to a criminal trial in state or federal court rather than a military tribunal? Before you say that one is fair and one is not, I'll remind you that many Americans in the 4 armed services are tried by military tribunal and get fair trials. And many Americans get screwed in civil coart.
It would be nice if you cared as much about the rights of people who would have been killed if Padilla's bomb attack had happened.
>>If you are born in the United States, you cannot lose your citizenship, except voluntarily.
Did he voluntarily joined al-Qaida? There ya go.
>> There is a thing called "justice".
Yes there is. The crimes he is accussed of mean Padilla should be tried by the military. US citizens who serve in our armed forced are tried every day in military courts. If it's good enough for them....
>> The government has yet to prove he conspired against us as a terrorist. It's quite likely that he did. But his case will set a precedence for other cases in the near future, and I think it's important that there be a fully defined legal process to protect the innocent.
No argument here. I don't want to see an OJ style circus trial with lawyers who are out to win at all costs.
I see you've made a real philosophical statement in your SIG as well.
Lindh should have been tried by the military. Major fuck up.
This man lost his rights as a US citizen when he traveled overseas and conspired with a foreign government to harm the United States. Read the fine print on your passport sometime. You can have your citizenship revoked for such actions. He is an enemy in a foriegn army. As such, it is appropriate for him to be tried by the military.
There is some very damning evidence that this piece of shit wanted to detonate a radiological device on our soil. This isn't "Free Kevin" time here. He's a fucking terrorist. And if he succeeded in doing what he intended, if my two little girls were dying of radiation poisoning, at least Morphine007 can sleep well that he wasn't denied due process.
For fuck's sake, can we get real about the fact this is a war?
This makes room for a delux Box set later with DTS sound. A SE disc now just waters that option down later.
(alligator tears)
Boy, I know some newsgroups are going to get real empty...