privacy.at Anonymous Remailer wrote:
Greetings
Has Saddam recieved a lawyer yet?
Will Saddam be judged by a court having jurisdiction and being
recognized internationally?
The Hague has no jurisdiction over crimes committed in the past
due to the Henry Kissinger clause insisted upon by the US.
privacy.at Anonymous Remailer wrote:
Greetings
Has Saddam recieved a lawyer yet?
Will Saddam be judged by a court having jurisdiction and being
recognized internationally?
The Hague has no jurisdiction over crimes committed in the past
due to the Henry Kissinger clause insisted upon by the US.
R. A. Hettinga wrote:
. . .
Right, though I'm sure you're wishing it wasn't. Again, crime,
illegal markets if you will are piddly bits of pocket fluff in the
global economy. $4 trillion worth of foreign exchange alone happened
today. Criminal activity is in the tens of billions, max, a year.
.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 13 May 2002 at 18:27, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
Right, though I'm sure you're wishing it wasn't. Again, crime,
illegal markets if you will are piddly bits of pocket fluff in the
global economy. $4 trillion worth of foreign exchange alone happened
today.
How could
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--
On 13 May 2002 at 22:34, Richard Fiero wrote:
As the article excerpted below states, in 2001 there was about
$620 billion dollars in US currency out there somewhere and 65%
was in $100 dollar bills.
Presumably most of those $100 bills are changing hands
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 13 May 2002 at 18:27, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
Right, though I'm sure you're wishing it wasn't. Again, crime,
illegal markets if you will are piddly bits of pocket fluff in the
global economy. $4 trillion worth of foreign exchange alone happened
today.
How could
The following seems just backwards. Marxist thought holds that the
whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
Ray Dillinger wrote:
. . .
Get it through your head -- the Market is NOT the same thing as
the individual economic actors whose actions make it up. That is
the fundamental mistake
Sampo A Syreeni writes:
. . .
Well, I think that as long as a conventional photograph is taken from a
public place, it does not constitute a punishable breach of privacy. What's
so very different about doing the same thing with IR?
Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED], aka decoy,
