On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote:
On 18 Dec 2003 at 19:09, J.A. Terranson wrote:
And all of this is meaningless: we simply had no right to
invade a foreign, *sovereign* nation.
Although you probably do not know it, you are invoking the
rules of the peace of Westphalia.
The
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Jim Dixon wrote:
SNIP
Why does the US military have
to treat them as though they had US constitutional rights? They are not
citizens or physically present in the United States.
In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights. It does
not *establish*
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights. It
does
not *establish* these rights. If we are going to be faithful to this
premise, physical location is a non-sequitor.
This is a valid and probably commendable
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote:
Why does the US military have
to treat them as though they had US constitutional rights? They are not
citizens or physically present in the United States.
In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights. It does
not
In a message dated 12/19/2003 8:33:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote:
Why does the US military have
to treat them as though they had US constitutional rights? They are not
citizens or physically present in the United States.
In a
After WWI the winners humiliated the loosers badly. This is one of the main reasons
Hitler came to power and got support from the Germans for the aggressions that started
the war. He managed to use these feelings of being treated as dogs and paying to heavy
for the first war. Also they were
At 02:00 AM 12/19/2003, Nomen Nescio wrote:
After WWI the winners humiliated the loosers badly. This is one of the
main reasons Hitler came to power and got support from the Germans for the
aggressions that started the war. He managed to use these feelings of
being treated as dogs and paying to
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Jim Dixon wrote:
The cost for politicians mandating such a policy
would be equally high: they would be out of office and facing criminal
charges themselves.
No, I think they would be dead. At first opportunity.
Or at least, I like to think so.
Nomen Nescio wrote:
Let's face it: not even the Nazi war criminals were treated in the way Saddam has been treated.
Eh?
And have you heard about the Soviet Union?
At 08:16 PM 12/18/03 +, Jim Dixon wrote:
What exactly do you mean by peered IP telephony?
Voice telephony requires delays measured in tens of milliseconds. A
bit
difficult if you also want encryption, anonymity, etc.
The problem handling the delay comes with the network, not the
Greetings
Has Saddam recieved a lawyer yet?
Will Saddam be judged by a court having jurisdiction and being recognized
internationally?
Because it means you can complete call to the POTs with no
company-controlled switch involved, meaning no where to serve a court
order. Since the call could be routed through a few intermediate nodes and
I see.
So, in the real world, X uses this to make telephone threats, your POTS gets
At 06:14 PM 12/18/2003, Morlock Elloi wrote:
What I'd like to see is a P2P telephony that also supports end-user
gateways to the POTS. I'm not certain, but I think there are some MS
However, I don't see people letting others use their POTS lines, nor I see
them
using their own for this
At 03:47 PM 12/18/2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
At 08:16 PM 12/18/03 +, Jim Dixon wrote:
What exactly do you mean by peered IP telephony?
What I'd like to see is a P2P telephony that also supports end-user
gateways to the POTS. I'm not certain, but I think there are some MS
certified
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote:
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:34:00 -0800
From: James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
--
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote:
Different rules apply in war.
J.A.
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote:
On 18 Dec 2003 at 5:40, privacy.at Anonymous Remailer wrote:
I think you might have forgotten about the other half the
system, due process. Even if you KNOW something, you've got
to go through the motions.
Different rules apply in war.
One
At 07:57 PM 12/18/2003, Morlock Elloi wrote:
Because it means you can complete call to the POTs with no
company-controlled switch involved, meaning no where to serve a court
order. Since the call could be routed through a few intermediate nodes
and
I see.
So, in the real world, X uses this
What I'd like to see is a P2P telephony that also supports end-user
gateways to the POTS. I'm not certain, but I think there are some MS
I don't get what does this have to do with crypto.
Outside crypto, this didn't quite work with (almost) public fax gateways of
'90s. In theory, you could
--
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote:
Different rules apply in war.
J.A. Terranson wrote:
One leettllleee problem: we are not really at war.
Sure looks like war to me.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
Saddam is being wrongly held by illegal invaders and occupiers. He
should be immediately released or turned over to legitimate
authorities, such as the international courts. Advocate for the
release of Saddam Hussein, and the withdrawal of the USurpers. Pass the
word.
Regards,
proclus
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Jim Dixon wrote:
huge snip
The evidence points to deep ties between Russia, France, and Iraq that
goes back decades, plus somewhat weaker ties to China and Germany.
Relations between the US and Baath-controlled Iraq were bad from the
beginning; American bodies dangling
--
On 18 Dec 2003 at 19:09, J.A. Terranson wrote:
And all of this is meaningless: we simply had no right to
invade a foreign, *sovereign* nation.
Although you probably do not know it, you are invoking the
rules of the peace of Westphalia.
The Soviet Union never respected the peace of
--
On 18 Dec 2003 at 14:07, Michael Kalus wrote:
The west traded heavily with [Saddam], be it the US, France,
Germany, the UK.
The west, including the US traded and continues to trade
heavily with Castro, yet somehow that does not lead you to
believe they think Castro a good guy, nor does
Jim Dixon (2003-12-19 13:30Z) wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote:
In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights.
It does not *establish* these rights. If we are going to be
faithful to this premise, physical location is a non-sequitor.
This is a
--
On 18 Dec 2003 at 15:42, Michael Kalus wrote:
By January 1984, /The Washington Post/ was reporting that the
United States had told friendly nations in the Persian Gulf
that the defeat of Iraq would be contrary to U.S.
interests. That sent the message that America would not
object to
That all depends on your definition of sovereign. After all, we put, or
at least helped, that monster into power. No different an action than we
the many times before putting tyrants into control of small, but important
nations under the guise of protecting democracy.
So, while he was our
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 19-Dec-03, at 11:55 AM, ken wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
Let's face it: not even the Nazi war criminals were treated in the
way Saddam has been treated.
Eh?
And have you heard about the Soviet Union?
I'll take it then that the US has
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The US has global hegemony because in reality its policies are
reasonable,
because it isn't worth anyone's while to try to oppose it.
that I would like to oppose. It is rather the fact that in the past it
wasn't very feasible. The world is
--
On 19 Dec 2003 at 10:57, Steve Schear wrote:
[Jim, don't you ever do a bit of research on historical
topics before spouting off? Google is your friend. Use it.]
From Ramsey Clark's excellent The Fire This Time.
http://www.firethistime.org/linesscript.htm TRACK 3 : LINES
IN THE SAND
--
On 19 Dec 2003 at 11:00, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Let's face it: not even the Nazi war criminals were treated
in the way Saddam has been treated.
Oh no, he got a shave and a dental examination, the horror, the
horror.
And in due course he is going to get an execution, which is
exactly what
At 07:19 AM 12/19/2003, Jim Dixon wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Saddam had been less of an
idiot, if he had left Kuwait alone, he would
be relaxing in one of his palaces today and his sons would be out
snatching women off the street, torturing people who had annoyed them
--
On 19 Dec 2003 at 10:57, Steve Schear wrote:
Saddam Hussein summoned US Ambassador Glaspie and asked her
to clarify the American position.
I have direct instructions from the President to seek better
relations with Iraq. [
] Our opinion is that you should have
the opportunity to
Ken, Eh what?
Yes I've heard a lot of the Soviet union, however I don't see what you meant by that
comment here.
What I was referring to was the winning powers' treatment of the Nazi war criminals
after WWII, Nurnburg trials and so on. (Note the word trials here)
I don't think I've ever heard
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This green light story is a commie lie (originally a Baathist
lie, but these days mostly repeated by commies)
I take it then that the heroic rescue of Private Jessica Lynch is also
the truth, while the story about the use of excessive (and
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.
--
Has Saddam recieved a lawyer yet? Will Saddam be judged by a
court having jurisdiction and being recognized
internationally?
Saddam will be judged by his victims, who have jurisdiction
enough for me. Who cares whether the guys at the Hague agree?
Hague claims of jurisdiction have
On 19 Dec, Anatoly Vorobey wrote:
And here I thought the fuckwits couldn't get any dumber.
Ahh yes, and such a clever riposts as well.
Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/
--
Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.1
GMU/S d+@ s: a+
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 01:17:28PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Saddam is being wrongly held by illegal invaders and occupiers. He
should be immediately released or turned over to legitimate
authorities, such as the international courts. Advocate for the
release of Saddam Hussein, and the
On 19 Dec, James A. Donald wrote:
--
On 19 Dec 2003 at 13:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Saddam is being wrongly held by illegal invaders and
occupiers. He should be immediately released or turned over
to legitimate authorities, such as the international courts.
To judge by its
On 19 Dec, Nomen Nescio wrote:
US is currently run by thugs supported by the cheering consumer crowds that have
been bred and conditioned to be infantile.
Your analysis hangs on this assertion. You may be underestimating the
revulsion of the US electorate towards the actions of the current
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 10:11:32AM -0500, Sunder wrote:
That all depends on your definition of sovereign. After all, we put, or
at least helped, that monster into power.
Not really, no.
So, while he was our puppet,
He was never out puppet.
he was the good guy,
He was never the good guy,
--
J.A. Terranson:
One leettllleee problem: we are not really at war.
James A. Donald:
Sure looks like war to me.
J.A. Terranson:
I guess that's why the congresscritters told Shrub to GFY
when he tried to get a declaration?
After 9/11 Congress gave the president a blank declaration
US is currently run by thugs supported by the cheering consumer crowds that have been
bred and conditioned to be infantile.
So the situation is best evaluated in the Lord of Flies context. As long as masters
are winning and have stronger army than anyone else, nothing will change. You will
--
James A. Donald:
Saddam will be judged by his victims, who have jurisdiction
enough for me.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It is tempting to say that the victims have some kind of
natural right to see justice done against this tyrant. The
problem is that the there is no one in Iraq with
--
On 19 Dec 2003 at 13:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Saddam is being wrongly held by illegal invaders and
occupiers. He should be immediately released or turned over
to legitimate authorities, such as the international courts.
To judge by its current woeful performance in the Serbian
On 19 Dec, James A. Donald wrote:
--
Saddam will be judged by his victims, who have jurisdiction
enough for me.
It is tempting to say that the victims have some kind of natural right
to see justice done against this tyrant. The problem is that the there
is no one in Iraq with legitimate
On 19 Dec, Anatoly Vorobey wrote:
But Saddam's regime itself stemmed from illegal takeover of a previous
regime -- doesn't that make all of his regime illegitimate and his
authority void?
No, by this argument nearly all the regimes of the world
would be illegitimate. Saddam ruled a
On 19 Dec, James A. Donald wrote:
Well if there is no legitimate authority, then state of nature
applies. Give him the justice that Mussolini and Ceasescu got.
Hang him by his feet from a lamp post in central Baghdad for
his victims to use as pinata
This would be an argument that the
[taken from private exchange back to the list with mutual agreement]
Why?
If there is no one with legitimate authority to try Saddam, then they
cannot rightly hold him, and he must be released.
What was different about Saddam's regime from the current US-installed
regime, that
--
On 19 Dec 2003 at 10:11, Sunder wrote:
That all depends on your definition of sovereign. After all,
we put, or at least helped, that monster into power.
No we did not.
in 1958 pro soviet socialists gained ascendency in Iraq, but a
power struggle proceeded between the communist and
At 11:06 AM 12/19/2003, Michael Kalus wrote:
I'll have a look at it. But I guess you also tell me that anything
Michael Moore said in Bowling for Columbine is wrong too?
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
We are much beholden to Machiavelli and others that write what men do, not
--
James A. Donald:
Every citation Chomsky gives is fraudulent.
I recently posted a paragraph by paragraph examination of
one of his more notorious articles. Every single citation
he gave was false in some central and crucial way.
See my very long posting:
--
On 18 Dec 2003 at 21:57, J.A. Terranson wrote:
Yet, I shed and continue to shed tears for a race of people
that refuses to respect the rights of men and their nations.
Like the Soviets. Or [now], the Americans...
Such high moral sentiments from someone who claims that
Americans
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The west, including the US traded and continues to trade
heavily with Castro, yet somehow that does not lead you to
believe they think Castro a good guy, nor does it lead you to
believe they are actively supporting him.
I don't think Castro is a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18-Dec-03, at 9:34 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
--
On 18 Dec 2003 at 15:42, Michael Kalus wrote:
By January 1984, /The Washington Post/ was reporting that the
United States had told friendly nations in the Persian Gulf
that the defeat of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
National Sovereignty, like the divine
right of kings, just is not taken seriously any more, and the
only people weeping big salt tears about its passing are those
who enthusiastically hailed all the Soviet violations of it as
wars of national
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Michael Kalus wrote:
I'll have a look at it. But I guess you also tell me that anything
Michael Moore said in Bowling for Columbine is wrong too?
Not wrong exactly, just completely biased, wrong headed,
snuffling at the ass of anti-gun Hollywood so it would be
hailed in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 19-Dec-03, at 2:35 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
--
On 18 Dec 2003 at 21:57, J.A. Terranson wrote:
Yet, I shed and continue to shed tears for a race of people
that refuses to respect the rights of men and their nations.
Like the Soviets. Or
58 matches
Mail list logo
