Well, you should note that this is also sort of a religious venture as well as the entire power grab issue.
The helium 3 is supposed to be an end all energy source that will make all these polluting technologies obsolete. There are people in the global warming crowd who appear to think that whatever it takes is more then acceptable.
The next issue is power. If this turns out possible and it's as convenient as touted. Whoever is the first will have the majority of control over it. It will be like one company or country controlling the worlds oil- coal- and natural gas supply. The country or those people in control of it in a matter of years will be enormously powerful. And it's pretty much a guaranteed result due to the Global warming camp.
So yes, if this was silicon or something that is readily available on the ground, I would wholeheartedly agree. But the distinctions here seem to be great enough that for some at least, it will be an anything goes, throw everything at it, situation.
What part of the constitution did those domain seizures violate? As far as I know, they all had a court order to do what they did.
I had a motorcycle stolen from me back when I was 19. They caught the rider two counties away and seized the bike as evidence. They had a court order holding it for whatever they needed to do and I had to get another to gain it's release. Are you telling me that a court order to seize property connected to breaking the law is not constitutional?
Likewise: Copyright has no right to violate my first amendment rights. Have you read the Constitution? search for the phrase "congress shall make no law", then read up and get back to me...
I have read it have you? Of course not otherwise you would know that the US constitution give congress the ability to create copyright and enforce it. Go ahead, search for it then get back to me.
I hate it when idiots go off half cocked with no understanding about what in the hell they are dealing with.
The rest of your dribble is an off topic rant that seems to be factually incorrect in a few places too. Oh watch out, it looks like you got some spittle on your chin. Anyways, I'm not going to bother replying to that.
There are all sorts of reasons.. Reasons like they have ties 50 miles away, or the economy allows them to live better outside the city, or because the air is cleaner and the crime rate is lower.
But the most important reason would be because the government shouldn't be imposing artificial restrictions on people that force the to move to certain areas. And no, burning less fuel is not a legitimate reason to allow this type of control over people.
And your request has as much weight as your military/financial clout. The rest of the world benefits heavily from having the USA's secrets revealed and won't help you except as forced. See the rest of your jingoistic and self-serving statements for the reasons.
It's been this way since before the US was even a country. What in the hell are you talking about? This has nothing to do with military or financial clout and everything to do with rules and law. Do you realize that you are attempting to argue that it's because of something before that something ever existed. I mean fuck, use the brain sitting on top of your head for a minute.
Those are two different scenarios. In your scenario a bad-guy commits a crime and flees. In this case Assange is rumored to have done something that was not a crime anywhere else and you're saying your law supersedes that. By that logic a Saudi citizen coming to the USA and buying a beer and a porno mag is opening the US retailer up to extradition to Saudi Arabia.
Listen, I posted a link about a guy who never stepped foot in the US and got deported to face charges. Actually, there was two of them. If you somehow think it's different and you are still refusing to see the reality we live in, then I'm done here. I cannot make you smarter then you are willing to be. IF you insist on being an idiot and spout off shit that makes your even more idiot friends think you are some how better, then that is where you will stand.
I'm sorry that something as clear and as established is such a pain in your belief system that you want to do whatever it takes to close your eyes and hope it disappears. I have already established through several links to specific cases that explain it nicely, I have told you what you need to look it up, and all you do is sit there and deny everything exists.
Oh, and it's not just my law, it's international treaty that says that. More precisely, In this case it's a treaty with Assange's home country which I already provided a link to..
The point is about your laws being clearly abusive. That's why they're only good as long as you've got the ability to force others to follow them.
That would be a silly and untrue point. But alas, you are already convinced and no manner of fact will change you mind.
Oh wow, no, I never realized you were protecting your own. Well okay then... I guess that justifies anything.
While that may be natural, for sociopathic lying fucks, to object to something while doing it themselves, you're still hypocritical assholes for doing it.
Its natural for everyone. History has definitely showed us that all sorts of people have done things to others that they didn't want done to them. Stop with the drama as if it impresses anyone.
Pathetic excuses. You gained your freedom by fighting that way and yet now use any technicality against those fighting with similar methods.
And this just shows your ignorance as if someone light a bonfire in your underwear. First, we did not attack innocent civilians while telling the king to go change something. We attacked the standing army at the time. Second if you are comparing terrorists acts with any revolution, you failed from the start because the terrorist acts are happening from outsiders. But I know you probably thought of that and have something fancy to say as if you closed your eyes and supplanted your own reality. Well, that doesn't make it true.
That I expect your day will come? You make sure of it with every word you say. Not by anything I do, but by world perception of you as immoral thugs.
Oh, so now you are the final arbitrator on right and wrong? When you can't even acknowledge reality. What a wast. I'm sorry I even fed your trolling.
The first amendment doesn't give you the right to violate all laws.
And your right, you don't need a website to download. On the other hand, you need the equivalent of those websites to locate the downloads you want. Hence how removing the downloads stops the majority of people from downloading.
Yawn.. You are missing the big picture while pretending to somehow be better then everyone else. And in your rush to missing the important parts, you are trying to insult others.
I calculate the cost incurred in my business and charge accordingly.
That's right. And when your costs cause your charges to be higher then everyone else' you go out of business or do a lot less of it unless you eat those charges to remain competitive with people who's only advantage is a geographical location. Congratulations, you just passed the course for business finance 101 and failed to learn anything from it.
And my competitors do also, or they are not my competitors for long.
And what you failed to recognize is that if your competitors are closer, their charges are less then your by default. So for you to remain their competitor, you either have to offer something they do not have or absorb the costs to remain competitive with them.
You see, the problem here isn't recovering costs. IF you can do that, fine. The problem is that in trying to recover costs, you are now at a disadvantage only because of the distance between you and them. Why in the hell should your customers continue to use you when you charge more on average simply because you live or have your base further away? Why would the factory that Johny drives 2 hours to get to because it pays a living wage that simply can't be found where he lives all the sudden start paying Johny more money simply because he lives further away. Instead, they are going to higher local talent at a lower wage.
I run service on a daily basis across 6 counties, and will travel much further if needed.
And it sounds to me that it is managed by someone other then you or you have been extremely lucky to date. Going more the one country in either direction will end up putting your required charges higher then your competition's who are already closer. So you will either be underbid out of business in those areas or you will have to bite the bullet and absorb the costs just like the person who lives in bumfuckistan will have to bite the costs of driving an hour or two to and from work to make something decent for a wage.
I have my hourly rate and travel charges calculated to cover my expenses, with a bit of wiggle room (currently I price expenses at $4.25 a gallon for fuel). If it exceeds that price for more than a week or two, I will recalculate.
lol. I guess you are already biting the bullet and charging less then you should. I charge half the travel time (time to get there) at normal wages when I have to travel outside the city limits. If it takes 2 hours to get there, I charge those two hours at $95 per hour. Now leaving is generally charged to the next customer I have an appointment with but I have deadheaded before.
If you were to try and charge $4.25/per gallon of fuel on top of your hourly wage here, you would find yourself without work really fast. If you were to try and charge that with a mileage tax on top, you would find yourself stuck working in a small radius around your shop. If your area is that desperate for what you do that you can get away with it, you should know, you are in the minority of America and not the majority.
I'm not sure you have thought this through much. First, the gas tax is just a moniker for fuel consumption taxes or a specific aspect of it. They don't disappear when you change fuel sources unless you go with an EV or propane which isn't currently regulated in most areas. And even then, if it's a commercial vehicle, you are going to pay according to mileage driven- not fuel purchased- regardless because of IFTA reporting regulations and State Fuel tax stamps.
But back to your main point. Damage in the form of wear and tear doesn't go up by the cube either. While fuel tax schemes aren't perfect, they are still somewhat accurate. What's killing them is the lower consumption requirements, electric vehicles and the fact that the fuel taxes have been diverted largely to things other then maintaining and building roads. It's similar to the tobacco tax. They claimed it was to discourage smoking, but they then cried about all the non-smoking-related programs that lost funding when smoking went down.
Take a serious look at your state budget and look at the fuel tax intake. then look at what is spend in the budget on maintaining roads. You should be surprised if 2/3rds of it actually ends up there.
That's right. Because who need to ever look for work further away then the next closest person. I mean seriously, why would anyone work 100 miles from their home when that company can now hire someone 50 miles closer for a good deal of savings. It's not my fault they live in bumfuckistan and commute because no business that pays decent has set up shop in their area right?
Oh, in case anyone is wondering, this is all sarcasm. If you think it's possible to build ever single cost into a contract, you obviously aren't getting contracts unless it's from your family members. This will simply make it cheaper to ignore those talents further away.
You miss the point. Yes, of course your government, and some others, agree that their laws are nearly universally applicable. Yes yes, they have it in writing. That's nice. Your rules interest me as far as you can project force, and pretty soon that won't be to your borders.
No, you miss the point. This isn't about projecting force whatsoever at all. This is about agreed to submissions from other countries in which you will find that they will willingly give you up to the other country. You simply cannot work to violate most of the more serious laws in one country and within the jurisdiction of that country and claim exemption because of a technicality. You couldn't do that long before the US was ever a country and you will not be able to do that long after is stops being one. The entire "they're across the border, they got away with it" bullcrap only exists in Hollywood movies. The reality of it is much different.
The problem with your rules, and do you ever have a bunch, is that they only apply when convenient. If a US serviceman was treated like the Gitmo-detainees have been the USA would cry and call torture, screaming about the barbarity of the enemy, etc.
And your point is what? This discussion was about the long arm jurisdiction extending to Assange, not double standards. And yes, it's natural to object to treatment of your own people while stating whatever it takes to preserver the percieved safety of your own. Do you see a common thread there? IF not, let me spell it out, they both end with protecting or attempting to protect your own people.
The USA took its freedom back largely through un-uniformed guerrilla combat and yet now wants to deny rights to combatants for failing to wear uniforms. It wouldn't matter what Assange did, or how great the benefits to the world, you'd still find some rule to justify whatever you planned.
Well, here is where you would be completely wrong. First, the vast majority of the revolutionary soldiers were uniformed soldiers. They carried visible items as part of the uniform that made it well known they were uniformed soldiers even though the color of their coats, shirts, pants, hats, or even type of gun might have been different.
Furthermore, these so called rights you are talking about didn't even exist during the US revolutionary war. They were inventions of the 19th century. The treatment of even standard uniformed prisoners at that time by both sides would violate these so called rights.
On the other hand, when we have war crimes trials for you freaks we aren't going to point at any historic precedent or supporting treaties, we're merely going to treat you the way you advocate others being treated, which is arbitrarily and brutally. You support and justify the wars - even post revelation of Bush's lies, you can take the blame for them.
And this just shows how willfully ignorant and biased you are.
First, there will never be any legitimate war crimes trials. The entire thought of that is little more then people attempting to gain the support of idiots to gather for their own advantage. Dick Cheney visited Germany and France at a time they were publicly calling for his arrest for war crimes and they failed to do anything remotely close to it.
But at least I know what motivates you know and can mark you off not only as ignorant, but purposely ignorant in order to maintain your own false reality. I have to ask though, is it frustrating to walk around with all these misconceptions and find that reality doesn't match anything close to what you think? I mean does it really chap you ass that while other countries will bark like a dog when it's close to negotiate something they want, even getting you out there railing support for them, only to back away like a spoiled child ending his tantrum after getting his way when push comes to shove?
There is nothing questionable about it and the supreme court doesn't have any power outside of telling the government it can't do something.
And yes, because of international treaties and long standing precedent that was taken from other legal systems in other countries, US law as well as the law of many other countries are universally applicable, when_you_consort_ with_someone_under_that_jurisdiction_to_ violate_those_laws.
It's good to know you support the application of foreign law though, it'll make it easier when we try you and your cronies for murder for supporting an unjust war.
First, it's trial, not try. Try is an attempt trial is bringing someone to trial. And no, I never said I support foreign law. I said that when someone conspired or acts with someone under the jurisdiction of a countries laws to violate those laws, the jurisdiction of that country extends to those outside individuals.
If you would take the slightest bit of time to have a cursory glance that the Long Arm Jurisdiction you would understand exactly what is being said here. Well, maybe not, you think try is the same as trial. So here are a few examples like Hew Raymond Griffiths and a copy of an 1960's era extradition treaty with Australia.
Now I know it hurts your feelings that you might be wrong and your idol might be in trouble after your uneducated mind thought he was free and clear, but for fucks sake, look into it a little before spouting off more crap and proving to the world how much of an idiot you are.
I am saying US law extends to non-citizens in other countries when they act in connection with someone directly under US jurisdiction to violate a law in the US. This has been the case since well before the internet was conceived of and will be the case long after you have thought of any snide remarks to make while pretending to be clever in front of your ignorant friends.
You can go to China, commit a crime that is also a crime in the US, then go to Japan, get caught, and they will extradite you to the US for prosecution of that crime under US law. You can be a UK citizen and be arrested and extradited to face violations of US law when you never entered the US at all but acted in a way to further the violation of a US law by someone subject to US law.
Look into the long arm jurisdiction precedents. There is plenty of history with it dating back to times when the Founding Fathers were still in government. The US Supreme Court has upheld some of them quite strongly too. They are reluctant to override those cases and do so sparingly.
Not really. If he encourage, aided and abetted Manning in any way, He could be charged and the US supreme court would back him up on it like they have others.
Please don't mistake reality for the fantasy reality should be.
And no, I'm being facetious and not trolling on you. Too many things are supposed to work certain ways only to be different in practice. It just seems that in today's world, "I think he's guilty" uttered by the right person is enough to convict anyone. After all, why would he have been arrested if he was innocent right?
Wouldn't it be easier to just replace the foot on the ubunto installs? Oh well, They should have known that people do not like change. I don't like Gnome to begin with which is probably why I never jumped into ubunto. But I have jumped ship in the past from other distros who tried to force gnome on me and I found a replacement for Firefox when I stop recieving updates to the 3.X version (I don't like the UI in the 4.X version and work arounds to get it back just aren't sufficient).
So in the end, the world still turns, software gains and loses support, and we are at the same as when we started.
It wasn't out of boredom. He went into a chat room and asked for advice. The guy talking the most gave him that information after asking if he was running windows and he replied I think so.
Bin Laden was self funded and organized funding from wealthy arabs in the gulf states. He did this because the Mujahadeen didn't care for him. He is only lumped into the same sentence as the mujahadeen because the definition of it includes him and his actrions. However, the mujahadeen was not an organized force so to say, it was more of a collection of common groups fighting for a common cause. Bin laden's role in the mujahadeen was primarily recruiting and financing. The US did not train and fund him.
Use the farce luke, use the farce as the ignorance runs deep in you.
Bin laden was never trained or funded by the US in the 80's. He was never the good guy and was considered the odd ball. This is well established fact of you care to look for it and enrich your knowledge instead of feeding your ignorance. Yes, Bin Laden played a role in afghanistan against the russians. It ws a role he played by himself except in a few rare situations. He funded his ventures with his own money.
The only difference between "terror" and justice or liberation or whatever misleading labels the propaganda industry uses on death and killing is who is committing it. When we do it, it's "liberation" or "intervention" or whatever and when they do it, it's terror.
What in the hell are you even talking about? Is your mind even closely related to reality?
Bush said that we couldn't look at threats in the world the same after 9/11 because these insignificant players looking for attention had killed 3000+ people in one day. Iraq was supposed to disarm, Saddam was claiming to be paying pensions to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. Saddam was claiming out of one side of his mouth that he had WMDs because he was afraid of neighboring countries invading Iraq and telling the UN he had none while refusing to let the inspectors do their job in the way they thought necessary.
What Saddam and Iraq had to do with the war on terror was when we shifted our focus from reaction to being proactive, he needed to be eliminated because he was more of a threat then Bin Ladan was prior to 9/11 and had a known connection to terrorist while claiming to have WMDs. And if Bin Laden got a hold of WMDs, the thought was that 9/11 would be minor in comparison.
So it wasn't anything Iraq an Saddam did directly, it was how we shifted out focus and approach after 9/11 that involved them in the war on terror.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you should note that this is also sort of a religious venture as well as the entire power grab issue.
The helium 3 is supposed to be an end all energy source that will make all these polluting technologies obsolete. There are people in the global warming crowd who appear to think that whatever it takes is more then acceptable.
The next issue is power. If this turns out possible and it's as convenient as touted. Whoever is the first will have the majority of control over it. It will be like one company or country controlling the worlds oil- coal- and natural gas supply. The country or those people in control of it in a matter of years will be enormously powerful. And it's pretty much a guaranteed result due to the Global warming camp.
So yes, if this was silicon or something that is readily available on the ground, I would wholeheartedly agree. But the distinctions here seem to be great enough that for some at least, it will be an anything goes, throw everything at it, situation.
What part of the constitution did those domain seizures violate? As far as I know, they all had a court order to do what they did.
I had a motorcycle stolen from me back when I was 19. They caught the rider two counties away and seized the bike as evidence. They had a court order holding it for whatever they needed to do and I had to get another to gain it's release. Are you telling me that a court order to seize property connected to breaking the law is not constitutional?
Yes, but how to you obtain a list of FTP servers to which you will visit and apply that knowledge?
I have read it have you? Of course not otherwise you would know that the US constitution give congress the ability to create copyright and enforce it. Go ahead, search for it then get back to me.
I hate it when idiots go off half cocked with no understanding about what in the hell they are dealing with.
The rest of your dribble is an off topic rant that seems to be factually incorrect in a few places too. Oh watch out, it looks like you got some spittle on your chin. Anyways, I'm not going to bother replying to that.
There are all sorts of reasons.. Reasons like they have ties 50 miles away, or the economy allows them to live better outside the city, or because the air is cleaner and the crime rate is lower.
But the most important reason would be because the government shouldn't be imposing artificial restrictions on people that force the to move to certain areas. And no, burning less fuel is not a legitimate reason to allow this type of control over people.
It's been this way since before the US was even a country. What in the hell are you talking about? This has nothing to do with military or financial clout and everything to do with rules and law. Do you realize that you are attempting to argue that it's because of something before that something ever existed. I mean fuck, use the brain sitting on top of your head for a minute.
Listen, I posted a link about a guy who never stepped foot in the US and got deported to face charges. Actually, there was two of them. If you somehow think it's different and you are still refusing to see the reality we live in, then I'm done here. I cannot make you smarter then you are willing to be. IF you insist on being an idiot and spout off shit that makes your even more idiot friends think you are some how better, then that is where you will stand.
I'm sorry that something as clear and as established is such a pain in your belief system that you want to do whatever it takes to close your eyes and hope it disappears. I have already established through several links to specific cases that explain it nicely, I have told you what you need to look it up, and all you do is sit there and deny everything exists.
Oh, and it's not just my law, it's international treaty that says that. More precisely, In this case it's a treaty with Assange's home country which I already provided a link to..
That would be a silly and untrue point. But alas, you are already convinced and no manner of fact will change you mind.
Its natural for everyone. History has definitely showed us that all sorts of people have done things to others that they didn't want done to them. Stop with the drama as if it impresses anyone.
And this just shows your ignorance as if someone light a bonfire in your underwear. First, we did not attack innocent civilians while telling the king to go change something. We attacked the standing army at the time. Second if you are comparing terrorists acts with any revolution, you failed from the start because the terrorist acts are happening from outsiders. But I know you probably thought of that and have something fancy to say as if you closed your eyes and supplanted your own reality. Well, that doesn't make it true.
Oh, so now you are the final arbitrator on right and wrong? When you can't even acknowledge reality. What a wast. I'm sorry I even fed your trolling.
The first amendment doesn't give you the right to violate all laws.
And your right, you don't need a website to download. On the other hand, you need the equivalent of those websites to locate the downloads you want. Hence how removing the downloads stops the majority of people from downloading.
Yawn.. You are missing the big picture while pretending to somehow be better then everyone else. And in your rush to missing the important parts, you are trying to insult others.
That's right. And when your costs cause your charges to be higher then everyone else' you go out of business or do a lot less of it unless you eat those charges to remain competitive with people who's only advantage is a geographical location. Congratulations, you just passed the course for business finance 101 and failed to learn anything from it.
And what you failed to recognize is that if your competitors are closer, their charges are less then your by default. So for you to remain their competitor, you either have to offer something they do not have or absorb the costs to remain competitive with them.
You see, the problem here isn't recovering costs. IF you can do that, fine. The problem is that in trying to recover costs, you are now at a disadvantage only because of the distance between you and them. Why in the hell should your customers continue to use you when you charge more on average simply because you live or have your base further away? Why would the factory that Johny drives 2 hours to get to because it pays a living wage that simply can't be found where he lives all the sudden start paying Johny more money simply because he lives further away. Instead, they are going to higher local talent at a lower wage.
And it sounds to me that it is managed by someone other then you or you have been extremely lucky to date. Going more the one country in either direction will end up putting your required charges higher then your competition's who are already closer. So you will either be underbid out of business in those areas or you will have to bite the bullet and absorb the costs just like the person who lives in bumfuckistan will have to bite the costs of driving an hour or two to and from work to make something decent for a wage.
lol. I guess you are already biting the bullet and charging less then you should. I charge half the travel time (time to get there) at normal wages when I have to travel outside the city limits. If it takes 2 hours to get there, I charge those two hours at $95 per hour. Now leaving is generally charged to the next customer I have an appointment with but I have deadheaded before.
If you were to try and charge $4.25/per gallon of fuel on top of your hourly wage here, you would find yourself without work really fast. If you were to try and charge that with a mileage tax on top, you would find yourself stuck working in a small radius around your shop. If your area is that desperate for what you do that you can get away with it, you should know, you are in the minority of America and not the majority.
yep... except this goes to levels as low as city and county wide too.
I'm not sure you have thought this through much. First, the gas tax is just a moniker for fuel consumption taxes or a specific aspect of it. They don't disappear when you change fuel sources unless you go with an EV or propane which isn't currently regulated in most areas. And even then, if it's a commercial vehicle, you are going to pay according to mileage driven- not fuel purchased- regardless because of IFTA reporting regulations and State Fuel tax stamps.
But back to your main point. Damage in the form of wear and tear doesn't go up by the cube either. While fuel tax schemes aren't perfect, they are still somewhat accurate. What's killing them is the lower consumption requirements, electric vehicles and the fact that the fuel taxes have been diverted largely to things other then maintaining and building roads. It's similar to the tobacco tax. They claimed it was to discourage smoking, but they then cried about all the non-smoking-related programs that lost funding when smoking went down.
Take a serious look at your state budget and look at the fuel tax intake. then look at what is spend in the budget on maintaining roads. You should be surprised if 2/3rds of it actually ends up there.
That's right. Because who need to ever look for work further away then the next closest person. I mean seriously, why would anyone work 100 miles from their home when that company can now hire someone 50 miles closer for a good deal of savings. It's not my fault they live in bumfuckistan and commute because no business that pays decent has set up shop in their area right?
Oh, in case anyone is wondering, this is all sarcasm. If you think it's possible to build ever single cost into a contract, you obviously aren't getting contracts unless it's from your family members. This will simply make it cheaper to ignore those talents further away.
No, you miss the point. This isn't about projecting force whatsoever at all. This is about agreed to submissions from other countries in which you will find that they will willingly give you up to the other country. You simply cannot work to violate most of the more serious laws in one country and within the jurisdiction of that country and claim exemption because of a technicality. You couldn't do that long before the US was ever a country and you will not be able to do that long after is stops being one. The entire "they're across the border, they got away with it" bullcrap only exists in Hollywood movies. The reality of it is much different.
And your point is what? This discussion was about the long arm jurisdiction extending to Assange, not double standards. And yes, it's natural to object to treatment of your own people while stating whatever it takes to preserver the percieved safety of your own. Do you see a common thread there? IF not, let me spell it out, they both end with protecting or attempting to protect your own people.
Well, here is where you would be completely wrong. First, the vast majority of the revolutionary soldiers were uniformed soldiers. They carried visible items as part of the uniform that made it well known they were uniformed soldiers even though the color of their coats, shirts, pants, hats, or even type of gun might have been different.
Furthermore, these so called rights you are talking about didn't even exist during the US revolutionary war. They were inventions of the 19th century. The treatment of even standard uniformed prisoners at that time by both sides would violate these so called rights.
And this just shows how willfully ignorant and biased you are.
First, there will never be any legitimate war crimes trials. The entire thought of that is little more then people attempting to gain the support of idiots to gather for their own advantage. Dick Cheney visited Germany and France at a time they were publicly calling for his arrest for war crimes and they failed to do anything remotely close to it.
But at least I know what motivates you know and can mark you off not only as ignorant, but purposely ignorant in order to maintain your own false reality. I have to ask though, is it frustrating to walk around with all these misconceptions and find that reality doesn't match anything close to what you think? I mean does it really chap you ass that while other countries will bark like a dog when it's close to negotiate something they want, even getting you out there railing support for them, only to back away like a spoiled child ending his tantrum after getting his way when push comes to shove?
Yo
There is nothing questionable about it and the supreme court doesn't have any power outside of telling the government it can't do something.
And yes, because of international treaties and long standing precedent that was taken from other legal systems in other countries, US law as well as the law of many other countries are universally applicable, when_you_consort_ with_someone_under_that_jurisdiction_to_ violate_those_laws.
First, it's trial, not try. Try is an attempt trial is bringing someone to trial. And no, I never said I support foreign law. I said that when someone conspired or acts with someone under the jurisdiction of a countries laws to violate those laws, the jurisdiction of that country extends to those outside individuals.
If you would take the slightest bit of time to have a cursory glance that the Long Arm Jurisdiction you would understand exactly what is being said here. Well, maybe not, you think try is the same as trial. So here are a few examples like Hew Raymond Griffiths and a copy of an 1960's era extradition treaty with Australia.
Now I know it hurts your feelings that you might be wrong and your idol might be in trouble after your uneducated mind thought he was free and clear, but for fucks sake, look into it a little before spouting off more crap and proving to the world how much of an idiot you are.
I am saying US law extends to non-citizens in other countries when they act in connection with someone directly under US jurisdiction to violate a law in the US. This has been the case since well before the internet was conceived of and will be the case long after you have thought of any snide remarks to make while pretending to be clever in front of your ignorant friends.
You can go to China, commit a crime that is also a crime in the US, then go to Japan, get caught, and they will extradite you to the US for prosecution of that crime under US law. You can be a UK citizen and be arrested and extradited to face violations of US law when you never entered the US at all but acted in a way to further the violation of a US law by someone subject to US law.
Look into the long arm jurisdiction precedents. There is plenty of history with it dating back to times when the Founding Fathers were still in government. The US Supreme Court has upheld some of them quite strongly too. They are reluctant to override those cases and do so sparingly.
Well, I for one don't mind this careless release getting someone killed.
Not really. If he encourage, aided and abetted Manning in any way, He could be charged and the US supreme court would back him up on it like they have others.
Please don't mistake reality for the fantasy reality should be.
And no, I'm being facetious and not trolling on you. Too many things are supposed to work certain ways only to be different in practice. It just seems that in today's world, "I think he's guilty" uttered by the right person is enough to convict anyone. After all, why would he have been arrested if he was innocent right?
With all the pet names surrounding animals associated with the distro, I wouldn't think they would be worried about female users much at all.
Wouldn't it be easier to just replace the foot on the ubunto installs? Oh well, They should have known that people do not like change. I don't like Gnome to begin with which is probably why I never jumped into ubunto. But I have jumped ship in the past from other distros who tried to force gnome on me and I found a replacement for Firefox when I stop recieving updates to the 3.X version (I don't like the UI in the 4.X version and work arounds to get it back just aren't sufficient).
So in the end, the world still turns, software gains and loses support, and we are at the same as when we started.
It wasn't out of boredom. He went into a chat room and asked for advice. The guy talking the most gave him that information after asking if he was running windows and he replied I think so.
Did you forget a mirror was in front of you again? PLease don't get upset at the image mocking your movements and break it again.
Bin Laden was self funded and organized funding from wealthy arabs in the gulf states. He did this because the Mujahadeen didn't care for him. He is only lumped into the same sentence as the mujahadeen because the definition of it includes him and his actrions. However, the mujahadeen was not an organized force so to say, it was more of a collection of common groups fighting for a common cause. Bin laden's role in the mujahadeen was primarily recruiting and financing. The US did not train and fund him.
Use the farce luke, use the farce as the ignorance runs deep in you.
Bin laden was never trained or funded by the US in the 80's. He was never the good guy and was considered the odd ball. This is well established fact of you care to look for it and enrich your knowledge instead of feeding your ignorance. Yes, Bin Laden played a role in afghanistan against the russians. It ws a role he played by himself except in a few rare situations. He funded his ventures with his own money.
What in the hell are you even talking about? Is your mind even closely related to reality?
Bush said that we couldn't look at threats in the world the same after 9/11 because these insignificant players looking for attention had killed 3000+ people in one day. Iraq was supposed to disarm, Saddam was claiming to be paying pensions to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. Saddam was claiming out of one side of his mouth that he had WMDs because he was afraid of neighboring countries invading Iraq and telling the UN he had none while refusing to let the inspectors do their job in the way they thought necessary.
What Saddam and Iraq had to do with the war on terror was when we shifted our focus from reaction to being proactive, he needed to be eliminated because he was more of a threat then Bin Ladan was prior to 9/11 and had a known connection to terrorist while claiming to have WMDs. And if Bin Laden got a hold of WMDs, the thought was that 9/11 would be minor in comparison.
So it wasn't anything Iraq an Saddam did directly, it was how we shifted out focus and approach after 9/11 that involved them in the war on terror.
Maybe they did it, verified it happened and it was Osama, told Obama about it, and he thought it happened today when he wanted to take credit for it?
Or perhaps the person programming the teleprompter made a mistake and put the wrong words in?
It could be an honest mistake.