I would like to apologise, to you and all the other I may have offended.
Apology accepted and sorry to all the Europeans I offended.
I didn't say that there is no evil in the world, all I said it is relative. I do think, for instance, that all wars are evil, it dosen't mean that for other peoples some wars could be justified. I don't believe that smoking maryhuanea is evil, some people do.
Everyone can agree that war for the sake of war is evil. War with the purpose of removing a man who kills his own people and doesn't give them the right to vote is a little less evil, I think.
I'd just like to say one more thing. People say "They only want to do war with Saddam to get a guy who'll be more generous with the oil." I'd like to remind them that current foreign policy, which our president agrees with, does not allow us to buy from Saddam. Not because he doesn't want to (he does). But because for the last several years, we've been practicing "containment", as suggested by our European peers. Apparently, it's not working. I doubt there's a regime more willing to sell us oil than a man desperate for American dollars. But it doesn't matter. He kills his own people, he plans on using Nukes and Biological/Chemical weapons. He needs to go.
God damn you are dense. THOSE detainees were caught in Afganistan after we invaded it, and are now being held in Cuba. The group I am refering to (and the CNN article refers to) are arabs living in the US that were rounded up just after 9/11 and BEFORE our invasion of Afganistan. Now, how can a group arrested before we attacked have been shooting at coalition troups before they were even there?
The ones held in the US are being held as violators of US immigration laws (i.e.: Staying in the country on a expired visa). So, I don't know what people are saying they haven't been charged with.
As far as i know the US has not developed such weapons. Even if the US has good reasons to invade another country, do you think thats going to change the mind of someone who's parents ended up being 'collateral damage'? That term is also a callose disreguard for life. Its a PC way to say 'we killed innocent people by accident.' At any rate, i know i'd be pissed if my parents were killed by another country, even if i was glad they were removing an oppresive govt. The fact that i'm now free doesn't mean i won't be missing my parents.
No, we haven't, neither have you, so, please, don't act like your country has no blood on it's hands. And speaking as the victim of a Turkish Terrorist incedent, I don't get all saddened when people say "collateral damage". Yes, it's callous, you know what? I don't expect the world to feel the pain I do. I'm not an emotional co-dependant with the citizens of this planet.
However, even if you are being held for violation of the law, you have certain rights. One of those rights is that people must be informed you're being held, or at the very least when asked the gov't must tell you if someone is held. You also cannot be held indefinatly and without a charge. Some are being held on visa violations. Fine. actually if thats the case, ship them out.
What? And let them off scott-free? What does that say? "Break our immigration laws, and the trip back is free!"
They have every right to hate the west. Its when they try to kill someone that its a problem. They can run around and hate us all they want, as long as they stay out of the US
But when they come into the US, you have no problem giving them airfare back?
The problem with the american people is that they don't even realize what the west-world is doing to that part of the globe.
How do you figure? Is it because our government keeps doing it? Like I've said before is that most Americans don't support every military action we've ever participated in. Its not a matter of showing support or disgust, either, if the DMCA and the Drug War is any indication. What you may be mistaking with also, is that we don't abuse our veterans for taking part in an action. Mistakes made by people who go to jail (yes, the people who make mistakes go to prison for causing collateral damage. you don't get it on your news because the military doesn't like to "wash its dirty underwear in public") should be left to those who made the mistakes. The medics, well-trained ground troops, and the other men and women who risked their life for an ideal (even if the government wasn't trying to protect that ideal, the soldier fights for it in most cases).
I do belive that we should bane all guns, from the one in your drawer to the ones in the military personal. It is an utopia, and I know it, but I will suport every step in this direction.
Well, tell me when humanity matures to the point where weapons and defense are no longer necessary. Tell me when there are no murderers, rapists, theives, and armed robbers. Tell me when countries are no longer run by men who seek to murder and destroy and oppress. Tell me when.
And to finish my rant, why do every thing has be "evil" or "good"? The world is not a dungeons and dragons game, what is evil to one person is not evil to others. The wolrd is not black and white, it isn't even a gray scale, the world is colored.
Was the Holocaust evil? If some country threw a nuke at New York just to kill people, would that be evil? If a man captures 20 women, tosses them into a prison and one-by-one force-rapes them then chops them into little pieces, forcing the last one to eat the entrails of the other women...would that be evil? I think there are a few "evils" in this world, still.
And as i've said, the people we are detaining (who you would like dead) don't even have any charges filed against them, and most are not suspected terrorists.
But apparently, all were CAUGHT shooting at Coalition troops...oops, not all, I believe 3 of them were caught while planting a bomb in Kabul.
So if we kill innocent people (which we have already done in the 'war against terrorism'), we should also be prepared if their families want us dead or in jail.
Please, tell me when your country has developed a methodology that creates at least 0 Collateral Damage. Where ever you come from, your country has caused collateral damage (which is the technical term for the deaths of non-combatants).
Maybe the families of innocent people we are holding without charges in the US (not in cuba) want to see those responsible for it in jail too. What your teacher said works both ways you know.
You know, the people held in the US are generally held there for violating US law, in all seriousness. They aren't just randomly picked, all the US detainees are people who have been living here with expired Visas. Yes, that is a violation of law.
Also, you may want to ask your math teacher if two wrongs make a right.
The saddest thing in this world is when good people allow bad things to happen. If you want to claim to be good and allow people to violate US law and live in our US with no papers, that's fine. And if you want to let the Taliban western-haters(Yes, they hate the whole west, not just the US. They hate all technology that's been developed since the Koran was written, unless it helps it kill people) to run loose, that's your choice. I don't want them around.
I lack respect for the life of a human who has made a conscious decision to eliminate other human lives.
My physics teacher once said something to our class after 9-11: "You have the right to make decisions for yourself, but be prepared for the consequences. You're given enough rope to hang yourself with. You have the freedom to do what you want, but if you decide to kill, rape, steal, or assault others, don't be surprised if the rest of us want you dead or in jail."
I think perhaps I'm not being clear here. I have nothing whatsoever against the average US citizen; indeed, several of the nicest people I've ever met come from the US, and I'm proud to call them friends. Nor do I have anything against legitimate military action, such as going after al Qaeda, and I certainly do not support terrorism. Nor do I have anything against ripping the testicles off anyone who supports the September 11 acts slowly and letting them bleed to death over as long and painful a period as possible. Let me be quite clear on these things, because I don't want you to think that I'm against any of them. Nor do I believe that everyone supports their government 100% on everything, though we have to recognise that the rest of the world mostly sees the actions of those governments (and in this case, the vast majority of US citizens in every poll since September 11 have supported just about everything the US government is proposing).
Thanks for recognizing that, but I should note that Bush's approval rating is somewhere in the lower 60% right now.
There is a point where actions cease to be reasonable. To me, that point comes when you start ignoring the very values you claim to be defending. The US is holding prisoners, using political rhetoric to justify their actions. You never answered my questions about whether you're really at war, and if so, with whom and until when, so it's hard to argue that holding those people without due process is unreasonable in a logical way. However, either way you answer, I think that argument can be made.
Will you answer my question about what you'd do with Taliban, given that their soldiers are not members of any state army? If the Mussaoui(sp?)case is any indication, trying every single one of them could take several decades without thorough preparation. As to them being denied lawyers, I don't know what that's all about, but I think it's possibly the Government getting concerned about sending in foreign nationals (they've all pretty much said they'd never trust an American lawyer...I can't blame them) into a secured military facility. Like I said, and this is what we in America call an "Analogy". We are at War with Terrorism like we are at War against Drugs. You don't take Internationally recognized (as in, they are recognized diplomatically by the UN) prisoners of war in the "War on Drugs", because it is a concept we are at war with. We are at war with the concept of Terrorism, because in most cases, Terrorism is carried out by people not representing nations (but they may be supported by nations). I mean, we could declare war on every country to have participated in terrorism, and then we'd be able to take Internationally Recognized POWs to satisfy you. But then, we'd be the War Mongerers you label us as. So, by your argument, the only way to satisfy you guys simply let them run amok.
You yourselves are currently in the very same position you claim Saddam is in. You are a belligerent nation, equipped with WMDs, planning to wage war against another state who has done nothing recent to attack you. The symmetry of the situation is staggering; the only certain difference is that you claim they are getting ready to attack you, but everyone knows for a fact that you are getting ready to attack them. There is simply no ethical stance that justifies your position. Any argument that supports your action against Iraq applies even more so to them attacking you first.
I suppose you also think we should've waited for Hitler to have developed the Nuke, hmm? When you have people who actually WORKED ON THE PROJECTS for Saddam saying that he's close to finishing his Nuke and that he plans on using as soon as he has a finished product...then given the easy availibility of Nuclear goods and knowledge on the black market, I think we have to get ready. All we've done so far is look at plans and protected the UN-SANCTIONED NO-FLY ZONE.
Just so you know, I'm very Anti-Nuke. And just to remind you, we developed the bomb, and the last time we used it was around 60 years ago. And I should remind you that just about every major Western nation has WMDs (Britain, France, Spain, even Canada has a few).
And by the way, I don't know what you're seeing on the news in the US, but over here, we are seeing UN weapons inspectors and senior military staff coming out against attacking Iraq with the information currently available.
I never said myself I was pro-attack, but they all agree that their job was unfinished when they left Iraq, that there were weapons there that shouldn't have been. They're against the attack, because it is their job to Inspect. they want to do their job.
If they are a genuine threat, you certainly have a right to defend themselves, but as of right now, I have seen absolutely no evidence beyond the say-so of Bush and his cronies that there is a problem.
There are defectors who've come out on the news, wrote books, news articles internationally, spoke before the UN and other bodies about the threat Saddam poses. That he's close to getting a nuke, and that he'll use it as soon as he has it.
...in a politically motivated effort to distract US citizens from the state of affairs at home, particularly your economy. But that would be cynical, I'm sure.
Yes, it would. It'd be the "Wag the Dog" theory of politics, and you're welcome to speculate your own conspiracy theories about how UN Weapons Inspectors, Iraqi defectors, and other individuals have BS'ed about the existence of Nuke development there.
I respect your opinion, even if you do think that a totalitarian regime headed by a man who uses brutal military force to sustain his power. You just won't be able to say you're any more moral than the average Nazi.
I'm not saying that NASA would be bankrupted by private industry, but rather, there is lots of money too be made by putting stuff into orbit, and if private companies can really beat NASA, surely they would be doing it now.
It's against FAA rules to attempt a launch of a space vehicle from American ground and airspace without prior permission. And they only give NASA and a few select companies (that can't send people, only cargo) the clearance to do so.
My skeptism towards private launch companies arises because they have only produced plans and nothing solid, whereas NASA actually (more often than not) puts things into space.
And then, like a spoiled kid, lose their expensive toy, shrug, and ask their Uncle Sam for a new one.
You mean like how parcel companies were great competition back for the USPS in the early 1800s? A government-established monopoly is immune to market forces until the government removes the barrier. That's why FedEx and UPS are so big now, because the barriers were removed.
I think you mean that they weren't charged with the horrible crime of getting scared and shooting back from their farmhouses whenever a few hundred soldiers charged over a nearby hill, shooting everything in sight.
Yeah, shit, dude, sorry for screwing it up. I'll get it right next time the international coalition that went to Afghanistan starts chargin up hills shooting at anything that moves.
But wait, when an American owns an automatic rifle, you guys critisize our government for allowing such evil, but a Afghan toting an AK-47 on his Opium farm is totally cool with you?
Also, way to go on killing more innocents in Afganistan than died on Sept. 11! That will truely cement freedom for the people of Afganistan.
Thanks, it was my best work yet. Next year, I hope to outdo the Holocaust.
I love Sarcasm.
And in an astonishing coincedence the oil company that employed Dick Cheney will now have a more friendly government to deal with there when they build their stalled pipeline! Everyone wins! Except for those filthy foreigners who dared to defend their country from invasion, of course.
Yeah, I know you Europeans see Karzai as a puppet leader. That's why you guys picked him out.
But the funniest thing is how scared most european leaders are now. They're NOW willing to oppose Israel as the modern form of appeasement, because they fear their own September 11th. I'm suddenly getting this picture of the French president holding the 2002 version of the Munich Pact.
Next time, we'll drop a McDonalds on them. Or maybe we'll ship one of those hoity-toity French joints on over. I'm pretty sure, after years of munching on moldy bread that wouldn't even get fed to animals here in the US, they weren't too picky about what they got. Seriously.
Don't you remember the news reports about the shadow government that was revealed shortly after September 11th? From CNN [cnn.com]
"Shadow Government" was a slipped up term that referred to the "Secure Location" that they send important officials during dangerous situations. If you've watched any movies or paid any attention during the Reagan administration, you'd have already known about the fact that there is and has been a secure location, in case the President was immobilized. Instead of reading the facts, they heard the name "Shadow Government", and suddenly concepts of conspiracy and evil men in black came to the minds of the crazed proles.
I'm surprised you don't bring up the Globalization movement as proof of a conspiracy, instead of some government spud's freudian slip.
No, but arresting [9-11peace.org] thousands of people [cnn.com] does in most people's books. Don't forget many of these people were not charged with anyhting
Not charged with anything except joining terrorist orgs, supporting tyrannical regimes, and attempting to kill American, Canadian, English, etc. troops. If I was in charge and there was no Geneva convention, I'd have hung half those m0f0's up by their balls until they die, and I'd take the other half, give 'em a Gauntlet and take $100 per head for anyone wanting to play the most realistic Quake 3 multiplayer. It'd give new F'N meaning to "LAN Party".
Last time I checked, the Supreme Court declaring the winner of the Presidential election was highly irregular. In fact, it has never happened before, and I hope it never happens again. Better solution? How about we all go to the poles again?
Next time, we'll follow the Constitution, and hand it over to the Republican-Dominated House. Oh, wait, nevermind.
No, but we do have troops all over the world. We appear to be involved in some conflict around the world just about all the time, and America has been for last 20 years. Do you remember the "axis of evil" rhetoric? Gulf War, Bosnia, Somalia? Troops in the Phillipines?
With the exemption of Phillipines and Afghanistan (by the way, we're in the Phillipines at their government's request and in Afghanistan as part of the final part of the Taliban clean-up. And there are British, Canadian, and other countries troops there with us in both cases), we're there as part of UN-Sanctioned Peacekeeping operations, along with other countries troops. We have bases in other countries, but mostly its in strategically important countries that have decided to sell their military off to pay for their decision to be socialist.
Right. So are you at war, or aren't you? Your president and government are claiming all sorts of powers that they're only allowed to use at war time, yet there has been no declaration of war, with all the disadvantages that would have.
If you're not at war, you have committed an act of war against the nation of every prisoner you're holding by keeping them against their will and without due process. Your government is also committing various minor transgressions such as totally disregarding various parts of your Constitution "in the interests of national security", blah blah.
OTOH, maybe you really are at war. In that case, against whom are you fighting? Under what circumstances will the war be over, and will the powers be relinquished? When will you acknowledge the basic rights due to various parties involved -- not just those in custody at Gitmo -- and behave in an acceptable manner for a nation state at war? When will you declare war, and thus force all the normal international agreements about war to come into force (starting with all countries stating their allegiance, or declaring neutrality and ceasing trade with either side, for example)?
You see, I don't think you're getting what I just said. We have not issued a technical official declaration of war, because there is no country to declare against (you see, countries can only declare war against other countries under US, as well as International (I believe), law. We ARE, however, at war with the act of terrorism, just as the US is at war on Drugs (which I'm against). There's a big difference. That's what I was saying. You can't blame us for following International Law by referring to them as "Enemy Combatants", rather than POWs.
However, from your post, I get the impression that you're opposed to stopping terrorism. Okay. I'll just let the IRA go tear you a new one.
Oh, please. You guys trained Osama bin Laden FFS. And right about now, you'd do well to remember that we're about the closest ally you've got (not that that's saying much these days).
Cool, I guess he's an American, rather than a Saudi, national, right? Oh, d'oh, I guess you forgot that. Oh, wait, you mean to say he was trained in an American-funded rather than Saudi-funded Madrassa? Darn, I guess not, but oh, well, doesn't matter to you, because it doesn't support your point of view.
By the way, I don't believe every military action my government was right, but it doesn't mean all our military actions were wrong, either.
Yep, I realise that. Did you ever stop to think that maybe the fact that half the Arab world is prepared to commit suicide in order to kill thousands of your people, or the fact that not one single nation has shown support for your plans about Iraq, might in some way be due to the fact that you have this isolationist, superior attitude?
I thought they hated us because we support Israel. I guess It was American ignorance. It's because we DON'T interfere with worldwide politics with our isolationist attitude. Hey, but that's cool. I mean, Europeans don't believe Israel is legitimate, I guess that's why you left them off the list of countries in our support list. I don't like Israel, but they know that Saddam is a threat. I guess until we find the UN Weapons Inspectors were right and someone gets hit with the nuke or Zyklon-B, or whatever else Saddam's got in Hell's Kitchen down there, you'll sit there and keep saying that the UN Weapons Inspectors (who are well-trained, most have college degrees) are idiots.
Riiiight. But it's OK for you to go toppling the odd government here and there (Iraq, say) because you don't happen to like their leader, and you claim he is developing WMDs to use on you? What about their national sovereignty? Just reverse that argument for a second. While they are claimed (by some, not all) to be in that position, you are definitely a nation state with WMDs that is planning to attack Iraq. With the overt preparations you are making for that attack, Iraq would now be quite justified in throwing every single WMD they have at you in a preemptive strike, and it would be self defence.
Hey, that's cool. We'll just listen to you. Just like we did for Kosovo. Then we'll have to wait for the people to get tired of the complacency of the world community, and overthrow their leader violently.
And to your Iraq example, I guess you're right, because Totalitarian regimes that hold fake elections and are lead by men who kill their own people are 100% legitimate, right? Yeah, I'm sorry. I agree with you whole-heartedly. EVERY country should have a monoarchy.
You might recall that WW2 effectively started with a declaration of war on Germany by our Prime Minister.
Two words: Neville Chamberlain. Oooh, two more: Munich Pact. Yeah, I don't believe you replaced the guy until Czechoslovakia and Poland got torn a new one. Only once you realized that Hitler was serious, did you realize you needed to declare war. But I guess that's the policy. "Containment until our friends are dead." as the British motto?
Some of us were prepared to stand up for the rights of our neighbours.
Except for Jews and Kurds, right?
You guys needed a surprise attack on Pearl Harbour before you even lifted a finger.
And you needed the capture of nearly 35% of Europe before you did anything, so what?
I'm sorry, but you guys have absolutely no right to go taking the moral high ground in any discussion on the ethics of nation states, their behaviour toward other states and their conduct during war time.
Of course, because ALL Americans are stupid, simply for being born here. Yeah, uh-huh. Right. I believe you. I guess all the people here who were born here who agree with you are retards, too, right?
One thing I wish you guys would do is stop assuming we all agree with our government 100%. I mean, I don't assume you all agree with your governments 100%. But I'm officially assuming you all think we're 100% in line with our government because I've never met a single European that did not harbor a serious hatred of the US. I've met hundreds of American One-Worlders and Socialists, which means there are plenty of people here who agree with you.
As opposed to, say, holding numerous foreign citizens from diverse states hostage in a military installation, denying them any legal rights or access to representation, and refusing to acknowledge them as either prisoners of war or criminal suspects who should be legally tried?
Oh, I see, so, you believe that if your country was at war, it'd treat these guys as guests and put them up at a Ritz Carlton, and give them Caviar while they awaited a soft-handed slap-on-the-wrist trial? I seriously doubt it. You know what these guys do to the people who watch that base everyday? They yell and scream and insult them on a constant basis. The women take immense verbal abuse from them. Things you'd never think of saying around your worst enemy. Yeah, these guys aren't "enemy combatants" or anything. You know why they can't say they are prisoners of war? Because, like every other government in the world(including yours I'm sure), save two Arab nations, did not recognize the Taliban as a legal government, so there could be no declaration of War. If we called them POWs, you'd bitch about the technicality.
Y'know, I only mention it because, well, that lot sounds entirely like the sort of behaviour that would get those responsible up before the ICC in short order, to be tried on whether or not their actions were reasonable. And it's not as though the entire rest of the world, from Arab states to the US' closest allies, is criticising the policy or anything.
Why should we hand our national sovereignty over to a court that has not one US judge on it? Besides, European countries critisize US policy, no matter what it is, and it's funny, because Arab countries produced most of the Al Queda fighters. However, the ICC has yet to call up any member of the Saudi Royal family on charges of promoting terrorist activity, seeing as how they fund the Madrassas that educate kids on how they should carry out suicide bombings against the West.
What you want is one law for you, and one law for everyone else. That is hypocritical, pure and simple. Every argument that could be made to defend that position would apply equally to all the other states involved, yet they are agreed, at least on the major points, that the ICC is a good thing and they are prepared to stand before it if necessary. The US wants exemption so it can continue to perform with impunity acts that would otherwise be regarded as illegal by the international community (kidnapping, assassination, military acts without due declaration of war, etc). Hell, the US now votes with certain "terrorist-harbouring" nations in opposing anti-terrorism legislation supported universally by the rest of the western world.
First, I don't remember the US ratifying the criminal court, so how can you say we want any involvments in laws for you. You guys can all go F yourselves for all most Americans care. The US wants immunity, because we didn't ratify it and we have no judges on this supposedly impartial court. Sure, the ICC could be an overall good thing, but the path to hell is paved with good intentions, my friend. Just because it's OVERALL good, doesn't mean that it's Right. And I'd like you to cite any "anti-terrorist" legislation that actually has any jurisdiction in the US.
You want one law for yourselves and one for everyone else, and you want your own courts to oversee it all. The rest of the world things that's unreasonable, for some reason. It really is that simple.
We want one law for our nation, and we want you guys to figure out what's good for your respective nations. If you find that you want to surrender your national sovereignty to a "higher" authority, then that's your decision. And also, the rest of the world thought it was reasonable to appease Germany prior to WW2. Does that mean the rest of the world was right? It really is that simple.
Or, it conflicts with the concept of national sovereignty. Of course, anyone who supports this court probably thinks that we should all be under the UN, not our respective countries.
A few comments in a narrow public forum does not a world conspiracy make.
However, it does show the opinions of a portion of the population. Given Slashdot's popularity and diversity, especially on the international scale, I'd say there's a good point about people saying that Americans need to "get what they deserve".
Having to obey international treaties also hurts combat effectiveness. Should we do away with them too?
Ah, yes, now I know you're a European. Shite, guys, your countries started AT LEAST two major wars because of your habit of screwing treaties.
If the issue at hand is an international issue, your peers are the citizens of the world, not the citizens of the US.
So, you believe that a guy in France who thinks that all Americans should get shafted makes a good peer, while, an American who believes in fair trials isn't? Seriously, there's a reason the US Government is more unilateral than you guys like. We CAN'T consider the World Community to be a community we want to be a part of, as long as the world resents us for having a mostly-Capitalist system that puts personal responsibility first. Instead, the world complains because we do the things that keep them safe, and that our capitalist system which, because of the Union-ized structure, just happens to benefit the worker alot more than the owners.
And still, you slowly chip away with us, sending political pressure out for NAFTA so that we'd all lose our high-paying labor jobs to guys in Mexico and Venezuela and whatnot. Another blow against the proletariat around the world.
And seriously, Europeans. I've had enough of this BS crap that, whenever you discuss foreign policy amongst yourselves on message boards and junk, that you assume that all Americans agree with their government. I mean, you do it sometimes on THIS VERY BOARD, which is possibly the biggest board for Americans who want to express their dissent with the government. You can't learn from that?
Did you notice that the US courts accept the fact that data is just as much property as your car is (for the MPAA's sake), and the fact that it is clearly not (if it has been gathered as evidence)?
I'd just like to see if someone would use that someday in a hacking or DMCA case. It could be used either way.
Oh, you're talking about the International War Crimes Court. Now, see, there's a reason Bush is against it, and this is one of the few things I agree with the Dynast on.
You see, the War Crimes Court, in order to function as an actual impartial court, it has to be based on the following:
1) The Judges are not merely representatives of countries that harbor a severe hatred of the US. (France, for example)
2) That one single countries soldiers will not be singled out for the crime committed by a coalition force.
3) And that there is a fair and just appeals process.
However, the problem many people see is that the War Crimes Court is that the proponents who get that little gleam in their eyes when it's mentioned are the same people who jizz their pants when you mention the abolishment of national sovereignty and the creation of a One World government.
I have a problem believing that the One Worlders and their friends will be 100% sincere in their application of the War Crimes Courts.
As well, what stops the UN from levelling it against a single nations armed forces for not agreeing with them in policies? The UN has shown its disregard for individual rights as it is (they see private ownership as a crime against humanity and the people who sit there are appointed, not elected), and I think they are an embarrassing international body.
The only people who think it's an issue of the US wanting to be exempt from laws seem to not understand how dishonestly this Court can be used as a Political tool for interests who want to kill and jail Americans for simply being Americans.
And how is NASA stifling private competition? Seems like there's more private space companies now than there ever has been.
Because, as it is now, there's only one American organization that is actually sending things into space. I mean, PHYSICALLY moving them. NASA. Most other Satellite and other orgs pay NASA to send their junk up there.
Not only that, but if the money that's given to NASA each year went to private companies (that proved themselves capable and responsible) as a subsidy, you'd have more innovation and less stagnation because different competant companies would compete for bigger grants and more money from people. I pose the question: Is there a Slashdotter who, if given the chance and a decent internet connection, would join up to colonize the Moon? I think we'd find at least a hundred on this site alone.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to apologise, to you and all the other I may have offended.
Apology accepted and sorry to all the Europeans I offended.
I didn't say that there is no evil in the world, all I said it is relative. I do think, for instance, that all wars are evil, it dosen't mean that for other peoples some wars could be justified. I don't believe that smoking maryhuanea is evil, some people do.
Everyone can agree that war for the sake of war is evil. War with the purpose of removing a man who kills his own people and doesn't give them the right to vote is a little less evil, I think.
I'd just like to say one more thing. People say "They only want to do war with Saddam to get a guy who'll be more generous with the oil." I'd like to remind them that current foreign policy, which our president agrees with, does not allow us to buy from Saddam. Not because he doesn't want to (he does). But because for the last several years, we've been practicing "containment", as suggested by our European peers. Apparently, it's not working. I doubt there's a regime more willing to sell us oil than a man desperate for American dollars. But it doesn't matter. He kills his own people, he plans on using Nukes and Biological/Chemical weapons. He needs to go.
God damn you are dense. THOSE detainees were caught in Afganistan after we invaded it, and are now being held in Cuba. The group I am refering to (and the CNN article refers to) are arabs living in the US that were rounded up just after 9/11 and BEFORE our invasion of Afganistan. Now, how can a group arrested before we attacked have been shooting at coalition troups before they were even there?
The ones held in the US are being held as violators of US immigration laws (i.e.: Staying in the country on a expired visa). So, I don't know what people are saying they haven't been charged with.
As far as i know the US has not developed such weapons. Even if the US has good reasons to invade another country, do you think thats going to change the mind of someone who's parents ended up being 'collateral damage'? That term is also a callose disreguard for life. Its a PC way to say 'we killed innocent people by accident.' At any rate, i know i'd be pissed if my parents were killed by another country, even if i was glad they were removing an oppresive govt. The fact that i'm now free doesn't mean i won't be missing my parents.
No, we haven't, neither have you, so, please, don't act like your country has no blood on it's hands. And speaking as the victim of a Turkish Terrorist incedent, I don't get all saddened when people say "collateral damage". Yes, it's callous, you know what? I don't expect the world to feel the pain I do. I'm not an emotional co-dependant with the citizens of this planet.
However, even if you are being held for violation of the law, you have certain rights. One of those rights is that people must be informed you're being held, or at the very least when asked the gov't must tell you if someone is held. You also cannot be held indefinatly and without a charge. Some are being held on visa violations. Fine. actually if thats the case, ship them out.
What? And let them off scott-free? What does that say? "Break our immigration laws, and the trip back is free!"
They have every right to hate the west. Its when they try to kill someone that its a problem. They can run around and hate us all they want, as long as they stay out of the US
But when they come into the US, you have no problem giving them airfare back?
The problem with the american people is that they don't even realize what the west-world is doing to that part of the globe.
How do you figure? Is it because our government keeps doing it? Like I've said before is that most Americans don't support every military action we've ever participated in. Its not a matter of showing support or disgust, either, if the DMCA and the Drug War is any indication. What you may be mistaking with also, is that we don't abuse our veterans for taking part in an action. Mistakes made by people who go to jail (yes, the people who make mistakes go to prison for causing collateral damage. you don't get it on your news because the military doesn't like to "wash its dirty underwear in public") should be left to those who made the mistakes. The medics, well-trained ground troops, and the other men and women who risked their life for an ideal (even if the government wasn't trying to protect that ideal, the soldier fights for it in most cases).
I do belive that we should bane all guns, from the one in your drawer to the ones in the military personal. It is an utopia, and I know it, but I will suport every step in this direction.
Well, tell me when humanity matures to the point where weapons and defense are no longer necessary. Tell me when there are no murderers, rapists, theives, and armed robbers. Tell me when countries are no longer run by men who seek to murder and destroy and oppress. Tell me when.
And to finish my rant, why do every thing has be "evil" or "good"? The world is not a dungeons and dragons game, what is evil to one person is not evil to others. The wolrd is not black and white, it isn't even a gray scale, the world is colored.
Was the Holocaust evil? If some country threw a nuke at New York just to kill people, would that be evil? If a man captures 20 women, tosses them into a prison and one-by-one force-rapes them then chops them into little pieces, forcing the last one to eat the entrails of the other women...would that be evil? I think there are a few "evils" in this world, still.
And as i've said, the people we are detaining (who you would like dead) don't even have any charges filed against them, and most are not suspected terrorists.
But apparently, all were CAUGHT shooting at Coalition troops...oops, not all, I believe 3 of them were caught while planting a bomb in Kabul.
So if we kill innocent people (which we have already done in the 'war against terrorism'), we should also be prepared if their families want us dead or in jail.
Please, tell me when your country has developed a methodology that creates at least 0 Collateral Damage. Where ever you come from, your country has caused collateral damage (which is the technical term for the deaths of non-combatants).
Maybe the families of innocent people we are holding without charges in the US (not in cuba) want to see those responsible for it in jail too. What your teacher said works both ways you know.
You know, the people held in the US are generally held there for violating US law, in all seriousness. They aren't just randomly picked, all the US detainees are people who have been living here with expired Visas. Yes, that is a violation of law.
Also, you may want to ask your math teacher if two wrongs make a right.
The saddest thing in this world is when good people allow bad things to happen. If you want to claim to be good and allow people to violate US law and live in our US with no papers, that's fine. And if you want to let the Taliban western-haters(Yes, they hate the whole west, not just the US. They hate all technology that's been developed since the Koran was written, unless it helps it kill people) to run loose, that's your choice. I don't want them around.
I lack respect for the life of a human who has made a conscious decision to eliminate other human lives.
My physics teacher once said something to our class after 9-11: "You have the right to make decisions for yourself, but be prepared for the consequences. You're given enough rope to hang yourself with. You have the freedom to do what you want, but if you decide to kill, rape, steal, or assault others, don't be surprised if the rest of us want you dead or in jail."
I messed up a few HTML marks on the page above. Please excuse them.
I think perhaps I'm not being clear here. I have nothing whatsoever against the average US citizen; indeed, several of the nicest people I've ever met come from the US, and I'm proud to call them friends. Nor do I have anything against legitimate military action, such as going after al Qaeda, and I certainly do not support terrorism. Nor do I have anything against ripping the testicles off anyone who supports the September 11 acts slowly and letting them bleed to death over as long and painful a period as possible. Let me be quite clear on these things, because I don't want you to think that I'm against any of them. Nor do I believe that everyone supports their government 100% on everything, though we have to recognise that the rest of the world mostly sees the actions of those governments (and in this case, the vast majority of US citizens in every poll since September 11 have supported just about everything the US government is proposing).
...in a politically motivated effort to distract US citizens from the state of affairs at home, particularly your economy. But that would be cynical, I'm sure.
Thanks for recognizing that, but I should note that Bush's approval rating is somewhere in the lower 60% right now.
There is a point where actions cease to be reasonable. To me, that point comes when you start ignoring the very values you claim to be defending. The US is holding prisoners, using political rhetoric to justify their actions. You never answered my questions about whether you're really at war, and if so, with whom and until when, so it's hard to argue that holding those people without due process is unreasonable in a logical way. However, either way you answer, I think that argument can be made.
Will you answer my question about what you'd do with Taliban, given that their soldiers are not members of any state army? If the Mussaoui(sp?)case is any indication, trying every single one of them could take several decades without thorough preparation. As to them being denied lawyers, I don't know what that's all about, but I think it's possibly the Government getting concerned about sending in foreign nationals (they've all pretty much said they'd never trust an American lawyer...I can't blame them) into a secured military facility. Like I said, and this is what we in America call an "Analogy". We are at War with Terrorism like we are at War against Drugs. You don't take Internationally recognized (as in, they are recognized diplomatically by the UN) prisoners of war in the "War on Drugs", because it is a concept we are at war with. We are at war with the concept of Terrorism, because in most cases, Terrorism is carried out by people not representing nations (but they may be supported by nations). I mean, we could declare war on every country to have participated in terrorism, and then we'd be able to take Internationally Recognized POWs to satisfy you. But then, we'd be the War Mongerers you label us as. So, by your argument, the only way to satisfy you guys simply let them run amok.
You yourselves are currently in the very same position you claim Saddam is in. You are a belligerent nation, equipped with WMDs, planning to wage war against another state who has done nothing recent to attack you. The symmetry of the situation is staggering; the only certain difference is that you claim they are getting ready to attack you, but everyone knows for a fact that you are getting ready to attack them. There is simply no ethical stance that justifies your position. Any argument that supports your action against Iraq applies even more so to them attacking you first.
I suppose you also think we should've waited for Hitler to have developed the Nuke, hmm? When you have people who actually WORKED ON THE PROJECTS for Saddam saying that he's close to finishing his Nuke and that he plans on using as soon as he has a finished product...then given the easy availibility of Nuclear goods and knowledge on the black market, I think we have to get ready. All we've done so far is look at plans and protected the UN-SANCTIONED NO-FLY ZONE.
Just so you know, I'm very Anti-Nuke. And just to remind you, we developed the bomb, and the last time we used it was around 60 years ago. And I should remind you that just about every major Western nation has WMDs (Britain, France, Spain, even Canada has a few).
And by the way, I don't know what you're seeing on the news in the US, but over here, we are seeing UN weapons inspectors and senior military staff coming out against attacking Iraq with the information currently available.
I never said myself I was pro-attack, but they all agree that their job was unfinished when they left Iraq, that there were weapons there that shouldn't have been. They're against the attack, because it is their job to Inspect. they want to do their job.
If they are a genuine threat, you certainly have a right to defend themselves, but as of right now, I have seen absolutely no evidence beyond the say-so of Bush and his cronies that there is a problem.
There are defectors who've come out on the news, wrote books, news articles internationally, spoke before the UN and other bodies about the threat Saddam poses. That he's close to getting a nuke, and that he'll use it as soon as he has it.
Yes, it would. It'd be the "Wag the Dog" theory of politics, and you're welcome to speculate your own conspiracy theories about how UN Weapons Inspectors, Iraqi defectors, and other individuals have BS'ed about the existence of Nuke development there.
I respect your opinion, even if you do think that a totalitarian regime headed by a man who uses brutal military force to sustain his power. You just won't be able to say you're any more moral than the average Nazi.
I'm not saying that NASA would be bankrupted by private industry, but rather, there is lots of money too be made by putting stuff into orbit, and if private companies can really beat NASA, surely they would be doing it now.
It's against FAA rules to attempt a launch of a space vehicle from American ground and airspace without prior permission. And they only give NASA and a few select companies (that can't send people, only cargo) the clearance to do so.
My skeptism towards private launch companies arises because they have only produced plans and nothing solid, whereas NASA actually (more often than not) puts things into space.
And then, like a spoiled kid, lose their expensive toy, shrug, and ask their Uncle Sam for a new one.
Just tell me next time one of those two plan to send up a batch of colonists. I'll sign up.
You mean like how parcel companies were great competition back for the USPS in the early 1800s? A government-established monopoly is immune to market forces until the government removes the barrier. That's why FedEx and UPS are so big now, because the barriers were removed.
I think you mean that they weren't charged with the horrible crime of getting scared and shooting back from their farmhouses whenever a few hundred soldiers charged over a nearby hill, shooting everything in sight.
Yeah, shit, dude, sorry for screwing it up. I'll get it right next time the international coalition that went to Afghanistan starts chargin up hills shooting at anything that moves.
But wait, when an American owns an automatic rifle, you guys critisize our government for allowing such evil, but a Afghan toting an AK-47 on his Opium farm is totally cool with you?
Also, way to go on killing more innocents in Afganistan than died on Sept. 11! That will truely cement freedom for the people of Afganistan.
Thanks, it was my best work yet. Next year, I hope to outdo the Holocaust.
I love Sarcasm.
And in an astonishing coincedence the oil company that employed Dick Cheney will now have a more friendly government to deal with there when they build their stalled pipeline! Everyone wins! Except for those filthy foreigners who dared to defend their country from invasion, of course.
Yeah, I know you Europeans see Karzai as a puppet leader. That's why you guys picked him out.
But the funniest thing is how scared most european leaders are now. They're NOW willing to oppose Israel as the modern form of appeasement, because they fear their own September 11th. I'm suddenly getting this picture of the French president holding the 2002 version of the Munich Pact.
Once someone clones your ass, you're fucked anyway. Didn't you see the Shwarznegger movie, the 6th day or something like that? Seriously.
Next time, we'll drop a McDonalds on them. Or maybe we'll ship one of those hoity-toity French joints on over. I'm pretty sure, after years of munching on moldy bread that wouldn't even get fed to animals here in the US, they weren't too picky about what they got. Seriously.
Don't you remember the news reports about the shadow government that was revealed shortly after September 11th? From CNN [cnn.com]
"Shadow Government" was a slipped up term that referred to the "Secure Location" that they send important officials during dangerous situations. If you've watched any movies or paid any attention during the Reagan administration, you'd have already known about the fact that there is and has been a secure location, in case the President was immobilized. Instead of reading the facts, they heard the name "Shadow Government", and suddenly concepts of conspiracy and evil men in black came to the minds of the crazed proles.
I'm surprised you don't bring up the Globalization movement as proof of a conspiracy, instead of some government spud's freudian slip.
No, but arresting [9-11peace.org] thousands of people [cnn.com] does in most people's books. Don't forget many of these people were not charged with anyhting
Not charged with anything except joining terrorist orgs, supporting tyrannical regimes, and attempting to kill American, Canadian, English, etc. troops. If I was in charge and there was no Geneva convention, I'd have hung half those m0f0's up by their balls until they die, and I'd take the other half, give 'em a Gauntlet and take $100 per head for anyone wanting to play the most realistic Quake 3 multiplayer. It'd give new F'N meaning to "LAN Party".
Last time I checked, the Supreme Court declaring the winner of the Presidential election was highly irregular. In fact, it has never happened before, and I hope it never happens again. Better solution? How about we all go to the poles again?
Next time, we'll follow the Constitution, and hand it over to the Republican-Dominated House. Oh, wait, nevermind.
No, but we do have troops all over the world. We appear to be involved in some conflict around the world just about all the time, and America has been for last 20 years. Do you remember the "axis of evil" rhetoric? Gulf War, Bosnia, Somalia? Troops in the Phillipines?
With the exemption of Phillipines and Afghanistan (by the way, we're in the Phillipines at their government's request and in Afghanistan as part of the final part of the Taliban clean-up. And there are British, Canadian, and other countries troops there with us in both cases), we're there as part of UN-Sanctioned Peacekeeping operations, along with other countries troops. We have bases in other countries, but mostly its in strategically important countries that have decided to sell their military off to pay for their decision to be socialist.
Maybe detaining people (some of them citizens) for an indeterminate period of time is wrong.
Maybe establishing tyrannical regimes based on Medieval law that abuses women and chops off the hands of criminals in wrong.
Ja, sign your ID card. It's for ze safety of ze Fatherland! Heil Bush.
However, the fact that they didn't when so many others did makes their opinion of themselves pretty clear.
I do remember most countries turning away Jews during WW2. I guess that was the right decision, going along with the rest of the world.
What's popular is not always right, and what's right is not always popular.
Right. So are you at war, or aren't you? Your president and government are claiming all sorts of powers that they're only allowed to use at war time, yet there has been no declaration of war, with all the disadvantages that would have.
If you're not at war, you have committed an act of war against the nation of every prisoner you're holding by keeping them against their will and without due process. Your government is also committing various minor transgressions such as totally disregarding various parts of your Constitution "in the interests of national security", blah blah.
OTOH, maybe you really are at war. In that case, against whom are you fighting? Under what circumstances will the war be over, and will the powers be relinquished? When will you acknowledge the basic rights due to various parties involved -- not just those in custody at Gitmo -- and behave in an acceptable manner for a nation state at war? When will you declare war, and thus force all the normal international agreements about war to come into force (starting with all countries stating their allegiance, or declaring neutrality and ceasing trade with either side, for example)?
You see, I don't think you're getting what I just said. We have not issued a technical official declaration of war, because there is no country to declare against (you see, countries can only declare war against other countries under US, as well as International (I believe), law. We ARE, however, at war with the act of terrorism, just as the US is at war on Drugs (which I'm against). There's a big difference. That's what I was saying. You can't blame us for following International Law by referring to them as "Enemy Combatants", rather than POWs.
However, from your post, I get the impression that you're opposed to stopping terrorism. Okay. I'll just let the IRA go tear you a new one.
Oh, please. You guys trained Osama bin Laden FFS. And right about now, you'd do well to remember that we're about the closest ally you've got (not that that's saying much these days).
Cool, I guess he's an American, rather than a Saudi, national, right? Oh, d'oh, I guess you forgot that. Oh, wait, you mean to say he was trained in an American-funded rather than Saudi-funded Madrassa? Darn, I guess not, but oh, well, doesn't matter to you, because it doesn't support your point of view.
By the way, I don't believe every military action my government was right, but it doesn't mean all our military actions were wrong, either.
Yep, I realise that. Did you ever stop to think that maybe the fact that half the Arab world is prepared to commit suicide in order to kill thousands of your people, or the fact that not one single nation has shown support for your plans about Iraq, might in some way be due to the fact that you have this isolationist, superior attitude?
I thought they hated us because we support Israel. I guess It was American ignorance. It's because we DON'T interfere with worldwide politics with our isolationist attitude. Hey, but that's cool. I mean, Europeans don't believe Israel is legitimate, I guess that's why you left them off the list of countries in our support list. I don't like Israel, but they know that Saddam is a threat. I guess until we find the UN Weapons Inspectors were right and someone gets hit with the nuke or Zyklon-B, or whatever else Saddam's got in Hell's Kitchen down there, you'll sit there and keep saying that the UN Weapons Inspectors (who are well-trained, most have college degrees) are idiots.
Riiiight. But it's OK for you to go toppling the odd government here and there (Iraq, say) because you don't happen to like their leader, and you claim he is developing WMDs to use on you? What about their national sovereignty? Just reverse that argument for a second. While they are claimed (by some, not all) to be in that position, you are definitely a nation state with WMDs that is planning to attack Iraq. With the overt preparations you are making for that attack, Iraq would now be quite justified in throwing every single WMD they have at you in a preemptive strike, and it would be self defence.
Hey, that's cool. We'll just listen to you. Just like we did for Kosovo. Then we'll have to wait for the people to get tired of the complacency of the world community, and overthrow their leader violently.
And to your Iraq example, I guess you're right, because Totalitarian regimes that hold fake elections and are lead by men who kill their own people are 100% legitimate, right? Yeah, I'm sorry. I agree with you whole-heartedly. EVERY country should have a monoarchy.
You might recall that WW2 effectively started with a declaration of war on Germany by our Prime Minister.
Two words: Neville Chamberlain. Oooh, two more: Munich Pact. Yeah, I don't believe you replaced the guy until Czechoslovakia and Poland got torn a new one. Only once you realized that Hitler was serious, did you realize you needed to declare war. But I guess that's the policy. "Containment until our friends are dead." as the British motto?
Some of us were prepared to stand up for the rights of our neighbours.
Except for Jews and Kurds, right?
You guys needed a surprise attack on Pearl Harbour before you even lifted a finger.
And you needed the capture of nearly 35% of Europe before you did anything, so what?
I'm sorry, but you guys have absolutely no right to go taking the moral high ground in any discussion on the ethics of nation states, their behaviour toward other states and their conduct during war time.
Of course, because ALL Americans are stupid, simply for being born here. Yeah, uh-huh. Right. I believe you. I guess all the people here who were born here who agree with you are retards, too, right?
One thing I wish you guys would do is stop assuming we all agree with our government 100%. I mean, I don't assume you all agree with your governments 100%. But I'm officially assuming you all think we're 100% in line with our government because I've never met a single European that did not harbor a serious hatred of the US. I've met hundreds of American One-Worlders and Socialists, which means there are plenty of people here who agree with you.
As opposed to, say, holding numerous foreign citizens from diverse states hostage in a military installation, denying them any legal rights or access to representation, and refusing to acknowledge them as either prisoners of war or criminal suspects who should be legally tried?
Oh, I see, so, you believe that if your country was at war, it'd treat these guys as guests and put them up at a Ritz Carlton, and give them Caviar while they awaited a soft-handed slap-on-the-wrist trial? I seriously doubt it. You know what these guys do to the people who watch that base everyday? They yell and scream and insult them on a constant basis. The women take immense verbal abuse from them. Things you'd never think of saying around your worst enemy. Yeah, these guys aren't "enemy combatants" or anything. You know why they can't say they are prisoners of war? Because, like every other government in the world(including yours I'm sure), save two Arab nations, did not recognize the Taliban as a legal government, so there could be no declaration of War. If we called them POWs, you'd bitch about the technicality.
Y'know, I only mention it because, well, that lot sounds entirely like the sort of behaviour that would get those responsible up before the ICC in short order, to be tried on whether or not their actions were reasonable. And it's not as though the entire rest of the world, from Arab states to the US' closest allies, is criticising the policy or anything.
Why should we hand our national sovereignty over to a court that has not one US judge on it? Besides, European countries critisize US policy, no matter what it is, and it's funny, because Arab countries produced most of the Al Queda fighters. However, the ICC has yet to call up any member of the Saudi Royal family on charges of promoting terrorist activity, seeing as how they fund the Madrassas that educate kids on how they should carry out suicide bombings against the West.
What you want is one law for you, and one law for everyone else. That is hypocritical, pure and simple. Every argument that could be made to defend that position would apply equally to all the other states involved, yet they are agreed, at least on the major points, that the ICC is a good thing and they are prepared to stand before it if necessary. The US wants exemption so it can continue to perform with impunity acts that would otherwise be regarded as illegal by the international community (kidnapping, assassination, military acts without due declaration of war, etc). Hell, the US now votes with certain "terrorist-harbouring" nations in opposing anti-terrorism legislation supported universally by the rest of the western world.
First, I don't remember the US ratifying the criminal court, so how can you say we want any involvments in laws for you. You guys can all go F yourselves for all most Americans care. The US wants immunity, because we didn't ratify it and we have no judges on this supposedly impartial court. Sure, the ICC could be an overall good thing, but the path to hell is paved with good intentions, my friend. Just because it's OVERALL good, doesn't mean that it's Right. And I'd like you to cite any "anti-terrorist" legislation that actually has any jurisdiction in the US.
You want one law for yourselves and one for everyone else, and you want your own courts to oversee it all. The rest of the world things that's unreasonable, for some reason. It really is that simple.
We want one law for our nation, and we want you guys to figure out what's good for your respective nations. If you find that you want to surrender your national sovereignty to a "higher" authority, then that's your decision. And also, the rest of the world thought it was reasonable to appease Germany prior to WW2. Does that mean the rest of the world was right? It really is that simple.
Or, it conflicts with the concept of national sovereignty. Of course, anyone who supports this court probably thinks that we should all be under the UN, not our respective countries.
A few comments in a narrow public forum does not a world conspiracy make.
However, it does show the opinions of a portion of the population. Given Slashdot's popularity and diversity, especially on the international scale, I'd say there's a good point about people saying that Americans need to "get what they deserve".
Having to obey international treaties also hurts combat effectiveness. Should we do away with them too?
Ah, yes, now I know you're a European. Shite, guys, your countries started AT LEAST two major wars because of your habit of screwing treaties.
If the issue at hand is an international issue, your peers are the citizens of the world, not the citizens of the US.
So, you believe that a guy in France who thinks that all Americans should get shafted makes a good peer, while, an American who believes in fair trials isn't? Seriously, there's a reason the US Government is more unilateral than you guys like. We CAN'T consider the World Community to be a community we want to be a part of, as long as the world resents us for having a mostly-Capitalist system that puts personal responsibility first. Instead, the world complains because we do the things that keep them safe, and that our capitalist system which, because of the Union-ized structure, just happens to benefit the worker alot more than the owners.
And still, you slowly chip away with us, sending political pressure out for NAFTA so that we'd all lose our high-paying labor jobs to guys in Mexico and Venezuela and whatnot. Another blow against the proletariat around the world.
And seriously, Europeans. I've had enough of this BS crap that, whenever you discuss foreign policy amongst yourselves on message boards and junk, that you assume that all Americans agree with their government. I mean, you do it sometimes on THIS VERY BOARD, which is possibly the biggest board for Americans who want to express their dissent with the government. You can't learn from that?
if you = satisfied,
end rant.
Did you notice that the US courts accept the fact that data is just as much property as your car is (for the MPAA's sake), and the fact that it is clearly not (if it has been gathered as evidence)?
I'd just like to see if someone would use that someday in a hacking or DMCA case. It could be used either way.
Oh, you're talking about the International War Crimes Court. Now, see, there's a reason Bush is against it, and this is one of the few things I agree with the Dynast on.
You see, the War Crimes Court, in order to function as an actual impartial court, it has to be based on the following:
1) The Judges are not merely representatives of countries that harbor a severe hatred of the US. (France, for example)
2) That one single countries soldiers will not be singled out for the crime committed by a coalition force.
3) And that there is a fair and just appeals process.
However, the problem many people see is that the War Crimes Court is that the proponents who get that little gleam in their eyes when it's mentioned are the same people who jizz their pants when you mention the abolishment of national sovereignty and the creation of a One World government.
I have a problem believing that the One Worlders and their friends will be 100% sincere in their application of the War Crimes Courts.
As well, what stops the UN from levelling it against a single nations armed forces for not agreeing with them in policies? The UN has shown its disregard for individual rights as it is (they see private ownership as a crime against humanity and the people who sit there are appointed, not elected), and I think they are an embarrassing international body.
The only people who think it's an issue of the US wanting to be exempt from laws seem to not understand how dishonestly this Court can be used as a Political tool for interests who want to kill and jail Americans for simply being Americans.
And how is NASA stifling private competition? Seems like there's more private space companies now than there ever has been.
Because, as it is now, there's only one American organization that is actually sending things into space. I mean, PHYSICALLY moving them. NASA. Most other Satellite and other orgs pay NASA to send their junk up there.
Not only that, but if the money that's given to NASA each year went to private companies (that proved themselves capable and responsible) as a subsidy, you'd have more innovation and less stagnation because different competant companies would compete for bigger grants and more money from people. I pose the question: Is there a Slashdotter who, if given the chance and a decent internet connection, would join up to colonize the Moon? I think we'd find at least a hundred on this site alone.