Euro MPs block bank data deal with US
news.bbc.co.uk
Euro MPs block bank data deal with US
1–10 of 30 posts
Re: Euro MPs block bank data deal with US
#2It's funny how the US feels entitled to do all these things, but when other countries want the US to allow them to do the same, there's no way. The war crimes court comes to mind as the most blatant example of this "one rule for you, another for us" mentality.
Re: Euro MPs block bank data deal with US
#3This is good news, but somehow EU governments think it's ok to use stolen bank data:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/informant-off...
Re: Euro MPs block bank data deal with US
#4It's funny how the US feels entitled to do all these things, but when other countries want the US to allow them to do the same, there's no way. The war crimes court comes to mind as the most blatant example of this "one rule for you, another for us" mentality.
The United States constitution forbids anything like the war crimes court. Also, the ICC and all war crimes courts are a farce -- they are show trials for all practical purposes, and I think extremely dangerous.
1. If a person commits heinous crimes in their country then it is up to their country to handle it.
2. If the crimes are committed in another country it up to that country to handle it.
There is no need for the ICC except to lend legitimacy to illegitimate claims.
I agree though, I can't believe that other countries are willing to hand over data of their citizens that should be protected by them.
Re: Euro MPs block bank data deal with US
#5Is this type of monitoring legal in the US when monitoring bank transactions in the US? Does it already happen in the US? Imagine the reaction if this had been the other way around, the damn Europeans spying on US bank transaction in the US.
Re: Euro MPs block bank data deal with US
#6[deleted]
Re: Euro MPs block bank data deal with US
#7It's funny how the US feels entitled to do all these things, but when other countries want the US to allow them to do the same, there's no way. The war crimes court comes to mind as the most blatant example of this "one rule for you, another for us" mentality.
Here's a lovely example of the US declining to make things reciprocal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003
It annoys a lot of people that the US can extradite someone from the UK without providing any evidence, yet the US never got around to ratifying it so the UK can extradite someone from the US without providing any evidence.
Of course, it may just be that the UK government is a bunch of idiots who think it's a good idea to give foreign legal systems this much power over their citizens, and the US has more sense.
Re: Euro MPs block bank data deal with US
#8It's funny how the US feels entitled to do all these things, but when other countries want the US to allow them to do the same, there's no way. The war crimes court comes to mind as the most blatant example of this "one rule for you, another for us" mentality.
The United States constitution forbids anything like the war crimes court. Also, the ICC and all war crimes courts are a farce -- they are show trials for all practical purposes, and I think extremely dangerous. 1. If a person commits heinous crimes in their country then it is up to their country to handle it. 2. If the crimes are committed in another country it up to that country to handle it. There is no need for t…
If it was their stance that a war crimes court is a bad thing, then it would be a fine, principled stand that I wouldn't have a problem with. But given that the US has never had a problem trying foreigners in war crimes courts (e.g. Nürnberg, or the whole Guantanamo/terrorist deal), they apparently don't think their constitution is good enough to apply it in a more wholesale fashion.
I remember Noam Chomsky saying something like "An argument whose validity depends on who is using it is merely an attempt at justification without any substance", and that seems a lot like what we're seeing here.
Re: Euro MPs block bank data deal with US
#9It's funny how the US feels entitled to do all these things, but when other countries want the US to allow them to do the same, there's no way. The war crimes court comes to mind as the most blatant example of this "one rule for you, another for us" mentality.
The United States constitution forbids anything like the war crimes court. Also, the ICC and all war crimes courts are a farce -- they are show trials for all practical purposes, and I think extremely dangerous. 1. If a person commits heinous crimes in their country then it is up to their country to handle it. 2. If the crimes are committed in another country it up to that country to handle it. There is no need for t…
The United States constitution forbids anything like the war crimes court [citation needed]
Re: Euro MPs block bank data deal with US
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
The United States constitution forbids anything like the war crimes court. Also, the ICC and all war crimes courts are a farce -- they are show trials for all practical purposes, and I think extremely dangerous. 1. If a person commits heinous crimes in their country then it is up to their country to handle it. 2. If the crimes are committed in another country it up to that country to handle it. There is no need for t…
If it was their stance that a war crimes court is a bad thing, then it would be a fine, principled stand that I wouldn't have a problem with. But given that the US has never had a problem trying foreigners in war crimes courts (e.g. Nürnberg, or the whole Guantanamo/terrorist deal), they apparently don't think their constitution is good enough to apply it in a more wholesale fashion. I remember Noam Chomsky saying so…
1. After Nuremburg it was a show trial put on by Stalin, there was no justification for the court -- it wasn't like the laws they broke existed in some sort of international context.
2. Not to defend Guantanamo -- I think it's abhorrent, but it is not a war crimes court, it's a place where prisoners of "war" are being taken.
As I said before, I think the entire concept of war crimes in nebulous and if there is any enforcement it should be done by country affected.