Same thing in Sweden. For example, a man was convicted(*) for defaming a woman, because he was spreading around a video where they had sex, which caused the woman to receive snide remarks from her friends and acquiantances. The crucial factor the court takes into account is the damage to someone's reputation. It's not necessarily justified because it's true.
(*) Defamation can be a criminal offense here, and doesn't need to be handled through a lawsuit.
It wasn't that simple. For example, it turned out that the McDonald's coffee was a lot hotter than ordinary coffee, which made the burns much more severe than they needed to be, and that McDonald's were aware, through their own marketing research, that their coffee was often drunk in the car.
I'm not saying the damages were reasonable, but the case wasn't as simple as people make it out to be.
Organised religion is usually value conservative; it embraces traditional values and structures like family and morals. Liberalism and socialism, on the other hand, want to break up traditional structures, because they believe they can redesign society in a better way. This often causes value conservatists and economic conservatists to become allies against liberalism or socialism.
Well, depending on your jurisdiction, a large part of the agreement you clicked "agree" to may not be valid - there are many consumer protections which are non-negotiable. It's often worth checking if the things you agreed to without reading them will hold up in court.
Well, even if you don't actually put it in the bank, you can earn money from having capital at your disposal.
For example, a firm that's taking deposits from their customers can use them to...
* Pay back some of their bank loans, so they need to pay less interest to the bank * Stock their inventory so they can sell more * Invest in a machine which makes their work more efficient... and so on.
It's not negligible. The gain may only be a small percentage of the total deposits, but since it's easy to keep deposits and doesn't require much work on the part of the firm, it's almost like free money.
When the deposits are paid towards virtual items, there's not even the risk that the firm will need the capital when the customers demand goods for their deposits, since virtual items can be created for free.
See the WoW Glider case, and the ruling that copying a program from your harddrive to your RAM constitutes copyright infringement.
How did I miss this one? That's like the old lady who calls to piss and moan about her cell phone not giving her a dial tone...
It also means you can't run a program without violating copyright.
For example, if you lend a Playstation game to a friend, the copyright holder can claim that your friend violates copyright when the game is copied from the disc into the console's memory.
If a piece of software is leaked (say, some software a PR firm is using to create fake identities on Internet forums, or some software the FBI is using for profiling) a third party can't examine it by running it on a computer without violating copyright.
They weren't. Bin Laden declared war on the United States in the 1990s. After treating the problem of Al Qaeda essentially as a police problem until the 9/11 attacks, the US Congress issued the Authorization for Use of Military Force which is functionally equivalent to a declaration of war on Al Qaeda. This is now a military problem. Bin Laden was killed as the head of Al Qaeda in a military operation in a war zone. No need for judicial involvement, which is very limited on the battlefield anyway.
Well then, if it's a war, the Al-Qaeda are combatants, not terrorists. If captured, you're required to treat them humanely, and release them when the war ends. Unless they're suspected of war crimes, they must be set free without trial. You're also required to allow regular Red Cross inspections to ensure the prisoners of war are treated well.
Are you really sure you want to define this as a war? By doing this, I think you elevate the Al-Qaeda from the status of simple criminals to honourable warriors.
If it's a war, then the Al Qaeda are enemy combatants, not terrorists. They can be killed in combat, but if captured, should be treated humanely, and released at the end of the war. Those enemy combatants who have targeted civilians should be put on trial for war crimes, but those who have only attacked enemy combatants and military targets should go free without trial.
On the other hand, if it's terrorism, then the terrorists should be treated as criminals. They should be captured alive if possible and put on trial for their crimes. All attacks, even those on military targets, should be treated as punishable offenses, and you don't need to release the criminals until they have served their sentences.
Either it's war or it's terrorism - you don't get to pick and choose when to apply which rules.
Well, if you're stronger than everyone else, you can do whatever the hell you like, but be prepared to have fewer and fewer friends left in the world.
Actually, I think the problem is that I don't have a firm opinion on the 9/11 attacks. As far as I know, Bin Laden could have been lying when he denied his involvement, but the attacks could also have been perpetrated by an independent group within the Al Qaeda network, and I think it frustrates you that you can't peg my opinions down.
Am I close?
Doesn't an ultimatum with a threat of war seem a little clearer then a warrant or wanted poster?
The Afghan invasion was never about Bin Laden alone - it was about a number of terrorists the Taliban government protected. But even if it was, it would only prove that the US government really wanted to get their hands on Bin Laden. It doesn't tell us why. Isn't it likely the US government wanted him because of his leadership of Al Qaeda?
And the Washington Post quotes...
David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.
"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."
...confirms what I said all along: there were no formal charges for the 9/11 attacks.
Or did you believe I said something else?
I'll admit the video is pretty strong evidence of Bin Laden's involvement, though, provided the CBS article isn't misleading.
Ok, I've checked your other links, and they only contain circumstantial evidence, and vague quotes from Bin Laden like:
The militant Islamic group decided "we should destroy towers in America" because "we are a free people... and we want to regain the freedom of our nation," said bin Laden
In fact, there are news reports which clearly state that he denied involvement in the 9/11 attacks (CNN):
Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands.
In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.
"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.
If one article claims Bin Laden took responsibility for the attacks, and supports it with vague, fragmented quotes, and another article claims he didn't, supporting it with whole, clear sentences, I find the latter more believable.
Here's an article clearly stating the lack of formal charges against Bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks (Washington Post):
The curious omission underscores the Justice Department's decision, so far, to not seek formal criminal charges against bin Laden for approving al-Qaeda's most notorious and successful terrorist attack. The notice says bin Laden is "a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world" but does not provide details.
I don't pretend to know what it is, but clearly something is wrong here.
As far as I can tell, Bin Laden was rightly suspected for other terrorism attacks, and supported terrorism in words if not in actions, so I don't object to the USA chasing and trying to apprehend him. I am, however, concerned that the whole truth isn't getting out.
China will probably be a much, much worse superpower than the USA. I'm only whinging at the USA because I expect more from a modern democracy than from a communist one-party state.
You cut off an important part of the sentence... I wrote, "The USA is the only nation which can send their troops into foreign territory *to apprehend someone* and get away with it".
I'm not trying to say no other country wages war and does invasions. I'm saying no other country can send their military on a raid into another country without risking retaliation.
It's not the same thing. Taking POW's is perfectly in line with the Geneva convention, as long as you release them at the end of the war.
The camps for Japanese-Americans during WW II were clearly racist and in violation of human rights, but at least their purpose wasn't to abuse the prisoners.
Guantanamo plays in a whole other league, since it's official purpose was to extract information with torture. It wasn't an accident or the work of over-zealous military personnel; it was approved all the way to the top.
Torture was something that Western democracies had abandoned, both in word and deed, by the time of WW II. Even Nazi Germany, who willingly committed genocide on Jews, Poles and other peoples, treated their prisoners of war relatively well. Using torture to extract information is a step back (by roughly a century).
WW II Japan may have been as bad or worse than today's USA, but a modern democrocy like the USA shouldn't be held to the lowest standards we can find.
Sure, I understand this is deadly serious. But every time the US decides to do an operation like this, they have to ask themselves if it's worth it.
If you can't take Bin Laden without either sending your own men into their deaths or making another nation your enemy, maybe it's better to stay home and fight terrorism some other way.
Yes, it was probably an important symbolic victory for the Americans. I suspect Bin Laden was even more important as a symbol to the American people than he was to Al Qaeda, and that the American feeling of victory will have greater impact than Al Qaeda's loss. If the American people feels safer now, it may bring some good with it.
If someone had told me ten years ago that the USA would set up detention camps where they brought in foreign nationals for questioning and torture without trial, I would have dismissed that as a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, reality has a way of catching up to you.
In case you don't know, a number of non-US citizens have had their assets seized without trial because they were believed to finance terrorism, or have some other kind of connection to terrorism, but without being charged with any form of concrete accusations.
Leading American politicians have seriously suggested that Assange should be assassinated because he (they believe) indirectly aided USA:s enemies by publishing classified information.
Slashdot Mirror
Same thing in Sweden. For example, a man was convicted(*) for defaming a woman, because he was spreading around a video where they had sex, which caused the woman to receive snide remarks from her friends and acquiantances. The crucial factor the court takes into account is the damage to someone's reputation. It's not necessarily justified because it's true.
(*) Defamation can be a criminal offense here, and doesn't need to be handled through a lawsuit.
It wasn't that simple. For example, it turned out that the McDonald's coffee was a lot hotter than ordinary coffee, which made the burns much more severe than they needed to be, and that McDonald's were aware, through their own marketing research, that their coffee was often drunk in the car.
I'm not saying the damages were reasonable, but the case wasn't as simple as people make it out to be.
Perhaps he meant "sitting on the can (which he keeps his bread in)"?
Organised religion is usually value conservative; it embraces traditional values and structures like family and morals. Liberalism and socialism, on the other hand, want to break up traditional structures, because they believe they can redesign society in a better way. This often causes value conservatists and economic conservatists to become allies against liberalism or socialism.
If it was only about avoiding credit card transaction fees, they could have made the point purchases in multiples of game prices.
E.g, a game costs 600 points, and you recharge with 1200 points at a time.
Well, depending on your jurisdiction, a large part of the agreement you clicked "agree" to may not be valid - there are many consumer protections which are non-negotiable. It's often worth checking if the things you agreed to without reading them will hold up in court.
Well, even if you don't actually put it in the bank, you can earn money from having capital at your disposal.
For example, a firm that's taking deposits from their customers can use them to...
* Pay back some of their bank loans, so they need to pay less interest to the bank ... and so on.
* Stock their inventory so they can sell more
* Invest in a machine which makes their work more efficient
It's not negligible. The gain may only be a small percentage of the total deposits, but since it's easy to keep deposits and doesn't require much work on the part of the firm, it's almost like free money.
When the deposits are paid towards virtual items, there's not even the risk that the firm will need the capital when the customers demand goods for their deposits, since virtual items can be created for free.
See the WoW Glider case, and the ruling that copying a program from your harddrive to your RAM constitutes copyright infringement.
How did I miss this one? That's like the old lady who calls to piss and moan about her cell phone not giving her a dial tone...
It also means you can't run a program without violating copyright.
For example, if you lend a Playstation game to a friend, the copyright holder can claim that your friend violates copyright when the game is copied from the disc into the console's memory.
If a piece of software is leaked (say, some software a PR firm is using to create fake identities on Internet forums, or some software the FBI is using for profiling) a third party can't examine it by running it on a computer without violating copyright.
They weren't. Bin Laden declared war on the United States in the 1990s. After treating the problem of Al Qaeda essentially as a police problem until the 9/11 attacks, the US Congress issued the Authorization for Use of Military Force which is functionally equivalent to a declaration of war on Al Qaeda. This is now a military problem. Bin Laden was killed as the head of Al Qaeda in a military operation in a war zone. No need for judicial involvement, which is very limited on the battlefield anyway.
Well then, if it's a war, the Al-Qaeda are combatants, not terrorists. If captured, you're required to treat them humanely, and release them when the war ends. Unless they're suspected of war crimes, they must be set free without trial. You're also required to allow regular Red Cross inspections to ensure the prisoners of war are treated well.
Are you really sure you want to define this as a war? By doing this, I think you elevate the Al-Qaeda from the status of simple criminals to honourable warriors.
If it's a war, then the Al Qaeda are enemy combatants, not terrorists. They can be killed in combat, but if captured, should be treated humanely, and released at the end of the war. Those enemy combatants who have targeted civilians should be put on trial for war crimes, but those who have only attacked enemy combatants and military targets should go free without trial.
On the other hand, if it's terrorism, then the terrorists should be treated as criminals. They should be captured alive if possible and put on trial for their crimes. All attacks, even those on military targets, should be treated as punishable offenses, and you don't need to release the criminals until they have served their sentences.
Either it's war or it's terrorism - you don't get to pick and choose when to apply which rules.
Well, if you're stronger than everyone else, you can do whatever the hell you like, but be prepared to have fewer and fewer friends left in the world.
People like you are the reason terrorism has been increasing.
No, the USA doesn't get away with it every time, but can you agree it gets away with a lot more than other nations?
Actually, I think the problem is that I don't have a firm opinion on the 9/11 attacks. As far as I know, Bin Laden could have been lying when he denied his involvement, but the attacks could also have been perpetrated by an independent group within the Al Qaeda network, and I think it frustrates you that you can't peg my opinions down.
Am I close?
Doesn't an ultimatum with a threat of war seem a little clearer then a warrant or wanted poster?
The Afghan invasion was never about Bin Laden alone - it was about a number of terrorists the Taliban government protected. But even if it was, it would only prove that the US government really wanted to get their hands on Bin Laden. It doesn't tell us why. Isn't it likely the US government wanted him because of his leadership of Al Qaeda?
And the Washington Post quotes...
David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.
"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."
...confirms what I said all along: there were no formal charges for the 9/11 attacks.
Or did you believe I said something else?
I'll admit the video is pretty strong evidence of Bin Laden's involvement, though, provided the CBS article isn't misleading.
What if he was sleeping as they entered the room? Did they have to shoot him then too?
Did they really need to make a killing shot? There are other parts of the body which are easier to hit than the head.
But Israel hardly gets away without retaliation...
Ok, I've checked your other links, and they only contain circumstantial evidence, and vague quotes from Bin Laden like:
The militant Islamic group decided "we should destroy towers in America" because "we are a free people... and we want to regain the freedom of our nation," said bin Laden
In fact, there are news reports which clearly state that he denied involvement in the 9/11 attacks (CNN):
Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands.
In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.
"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.
If one article claims Bin Laden took responsibility for the attacks, and supports it with vague, fragmented quotes, and another article claims he didn't, supporting it with whole, clear sentences, I find the latter more believable.
Here's an article clearly stating the lack of formal charges against Bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks (Washington Post):
The curious omission underscores the Justice Department's decision, so far, to not seek formal criminal charges against bin Laden for approving al-Qaeda's most notorious and successful terrorist attack. The notice says bin Laden is "a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world" but does not provide details.
I don't pretend to know what it is, but clearly something is wrong here.
As far as I can tell, Bin Laden was rightly suspected for other terrorism attacks, and supported terrorism in words if not in actions, so I don't object to the USA chasing and trying to apprehend him. I am, however, concerned that the whole truth isn't getting out.
Ok, I admit it. It's not a step back for Americans.
But it's true that Europe had abandoned torture by the time of WW II.
China will probably be a much, much worse superpower than the USA. I'm only whinging at the USA because I expect more from a modern democracy than from a communist one-party state.
You cut off an important part of the sentence... I wrote, "The USA is the only nation which can send their troops into foreign territory *to apprehend someone* and get away with it".
I'm not trying to say no other country wages war and does invasions. I'm saying no other country can send their military on a raid into another country without risking retaliation.
It's not the same thing. Taking POW's is perfectly in line with the Geneva convention, as long as you release them at the end of the war.
The camps for Japanese-Americans during WW II were clearly racist and in violation of human rights, but at least their purpose wasn't to abuse the prisoners.
Guantanamo plays in a whole other league, since it's official purpose was to extract information with torture. It wasn't an accident or the work of over-zealous military personnel; it was approved all the way to the top.
Torture was something that Western democracies had abandoned, both in word and deed, by the time of WW II. Even Nazi Germany, who willingly committed genocide on Jews, Poles and other peoples, treated their prisoners of war relatively well. Using torture to extract information is a step back (by roughly a century).
WW II Japan may have been as bad or worse than today's USA, but a modern democrocy like the USA shouldn't be held to the lowest standards we can find.
Sure, I understand this is deadly serious. But every time the US decides to do an operation like this, they have to ask themselves if it's worth it.
If you can't take Bin Laden without either sending your own men into their deaths or making another nation your enemy, maybe it's better to stay home and fight terrorism some other way.
Good point.
Yes, it was probably an important symbolic victory for the Americans. I suspect Bin Laden was even more important as a symbol to the American people than he was to Al Qaeda, and that the American feeling of victory will have greater impact than Al Qaeda's loss. If the American people feels safer now, it may bring some good with it.
If someone had told me ten years ago that the USA would set up detention camps where they brought in foreign nationals for questioning and torture without trial, I would have dismissed that as a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, reality has a way of catching up to you.
In case you don't know, a number of non-US citizens have had their assets seized without trial because they were believed to finance terrorism, or have some other kind of connection to terrorism, but without being charged with any form of concrete accusations.
Leading American politicians have seriously suggested that Assange should be assassinated because he (they believe) indirectly aided USA:s enemies by publishing classified information.
You know what I mean...