Thoughts
I'd hate for this to disappear into threadblivion...but oh well.
>>Wow, you are ignorant of how the world works, aren't you?
Blah blah blah.
If you want to have an argument over how treaties operate
between certain selected first world countries .....have at it.
But for just a second.....let's assume that when you used the
word "world" .... you meant "the world".....and how more powerful
nations interact with weaker ones (can't help but think this is relevant).
We'll come back to this.
Just for the record.....I studied International Law under Michael Akehurst.
(I know you know of him). Not saying that this makes me holier than thou
..... but cheap shitty insults which have as their foundation.... how smart
and worldy wise you are ... just ain't gonna cut it. Partucularly in your case.
Just so ya know.
An even more pertinent fact for you:
I am not a U.S. citizen (in case you didn't know) ..... so it seems
you have made a rash assumption.
The impact for me was minor......but just for the record
1) Was asked/advised to (re)register my whereabouts
2) My application for citenship has been delayed
3) I may have been monitored for all I know
>>Finally, while the majority of legislation is written to exclude US
>>citizens, there is some legislation that does NOT exclude US citizens
>>and this legislation makes a total mockery of your (as in you, Mike) rights
>>against unreasonable search and seizure.
.......
>>one of my countrymen's been sitting down in Guantanamo Bay incommunicado
>>for a year or so, so clearly there's no compunction about holding Canadians
>>without any due process whatsoever
You appear free to dance in and out of whatever level of granularity you see lends
itself to supporting your arguments. I've tried to point this out.
I know it may seem logical to you .... but I don't believe it is.
When it comes to security measures and whether or not they are justified ...... you
are in the corner of numbers, statistics and probabilities when gauging the benefit.
But when it comes to gauging the harm ..... you conveniently avoid using the same lens.
Suddenly your solitary countryman is raised to overwhelming importance in the debate.
You can try to say that this may have implications for the rest of us.... but then you stumble into
having to show whether this is even remotely likely.
Finally......let's come back to this shall we?
>>Wow, you are ignorant of how the world works, aren't you? Are you looking
>>forward to a complete breakdown in global trade? Where do you think the rules
>>governing global trade come from? How about the rules governing
>>interoperation if national telecom systems? How about the rules governing
>>interoperation of power grids? Highway systems? The system of international
>>order touches your life daily, every time you use a good manufactured or
>>otherwise produced outside the US.
If I may so...this is the response of a fuckwit who reads the equivalent of
USA today and fuck all else. Let me give you ONE.....just ONE.....example of what I am talking about. And this......just happens to involve Canada. (How about that!) Am I right in understanding that Chretien ordered Canadian forces to bomb Yugoslavia without even bothering to consult the United Nations? Was there a declaration of war? Did it have the approval of the Canadian Parliament? The bombing was a flagrant violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. There was no hesitation or scruples about going ahead. Where was the suggestion that operating outside the umbrella of the UN might have long-term consequences and deal a blow to the framework of international security? No explanation was ever given for this. Indeed I don't believe the failure to consult the UN was even discussed in Parliament.
So where was the fucking rule of law?
Now.......you can ....if you like .... fret and worry about the role of telecommunications agreements in International Law.....but I put it to you that there are more pressing things to be concerned about. And I put it to you that the idea that we have a "fair" world which is being conducted
according to the rule of international law is very...very.......naive.
-Mike (who believes that its possible to show support for a noble goal....and
still not be particularly enlightened)
"My purchase of a Hummer was inspired by our 1991 Gulf War victory. After this war, I'm buying an aircraft carrier."
(The Onion)
Edited by
Mike
April 3, 2003, 12:29:52 PM EST
Heh
I'd hate for this to disappear into threadblivion...but oh well.
>>Wow, you are ignorant of how the world works, aren't you?
Blah blah blah.
If you want to have an argument over how treaties operate
between certain selected first world countries .....have at it.
But for just a second.....let's assume that when you used the
word "world" .... you meant "the world".....and how more powerful
nations interact with weaker ones (can't help but think this is relevant).
We'll come back to this.
Just for the record.....I studied International Law under Michael Akehurst.
(I know you know of him). Not saying that this makes me holier than thou
..... but cheap shitty insults which have as their foundation.... how smart
and worldy wise you are ... just ain't gonna cut it. Partucularly in your case.
Just so ya know.
An even more pertinent fact for you:
I am not a U.S. citizen (in case you didn't know) ..... so it seems
you have made a rash assumption.
The impact for me was minor......but just for the record
1) Was asked/advised to (re)register my whereabouts
2) My application for citenship has been delayed
3) I may have been monitored for all I know
>>Finally, while the majority of legislation is written to exclude US
>>citizens, there is some legislation that does NOT exclude US citizens
>>and this legislation makes a total mockery of your (as in you, Mike) rights
>>against unreasonable search and seizure.
.......
>>one of my countrymen's been sitting down in Guantanamo Bay incommunicado
>>for a year or so, so clearly there's no compunction about holding Canadians
>>without any due process whatsoever
You appear free to dance in and out of whatever level of granularity you see lends
itself to supporting your arguments. I've tried to point this out.
I know it may seem logical to you .... but I don't believe it is.
When it comes to security measures and whether or not they are justified ...... you
are in the corner of numbers, statistics and probabilities when gauging the benefit.
But when it comes to gauging the harm ..... you conveniently avoid using the same lens.
Suddenly your solitary countryman is raised to overwhelming importance in the debate.
You can try to say that this may have implications for the rest of us.... but then you stumble into
having to show whether this is even remotely likely.
Finally......let's come back to this shall we?
>>Wow, you are ignorant of how the world works, aren't you? Are you looking
>>forward to a complete breakdown in global trade? Where do you think the rules
>>governing global trade come from? How about the rules governing
>>interoperation if national telecom systems? How about the rules governing
>>interoperation of power grids? Highway systems? The system of international
>>order touches your life daily, every time you use a good manufactured or
>>otherwise produced outside the US.
If I may so...this is the response of a fuckwit who reads the equivalent of
USA today and fuck all else. Let me give you ONE.....just ONE.....example of what I am talking about. And this......just happens to involve Canada. (How about that!) Am I right in understanding that Chretien ordered Canadian forces to bomb Yugoslavia without even bothering to consult the United Nations? Was there a declaration of war? Did it have the approval of the Canadian Parliament? The bombing was a flagrant violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. There was no hesitation or scruples about going ahead. Where was the suggestion that operating outside the umbrella of the UN might have long-term consequences and deal a blow to the framework of international security? No explanation was ever given for this. Indeed I don't believe the failure to consult the UN was even discussed in Parliament.
So where was the fucking rule of law?
Now.......you can ....if you like .... fret and worry about the role of telecommunications agreements in International Law.....but I put it to you that there are more pressing things to be concerned about. And I put it to you that the idea that we have a "fair" world which is being conducted
according to the rule of international law is very...very.......naive.
-Mike (who believes that its possible to show support for a noble goal....and
still not be particularly enlightened)
"My purchase of a Hummer was inspired by our 1991 Gulf War victory. After this war, I'm buying an aircraft carrier."
(The Onion)
