11–20 of 30 posts
This 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...
Earlier 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…
The United States constitution forbids anything like the war crimes court [citation needed]
This 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...
What do you mean? First of all that was Germany, so 'EU governments' does not apply in that case. Second it is a big difference between buying information about your citizens and selling information about you citizens.
Yes, there's a difference, but it's still very wrong.
We're talking about governments buying illegally obtained information, thus sanctioning the crime. How is this different from the government not being allowed to wire-tap its citizens, but if they go on the black market and get a black-hat to do it, it's suddenly OK? The only reason is the presence of an international border.
It'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 t…
The concerns were that there are a few members of certain Irish cultural organisations happily living in the US and it would wreck the peace process to extradite them, while NOT extraditing them would raise objections from the other side.
And, it's rather easier to bring a private prosecution for say war crimes in the UK - and the government didn't want the embarrassment of having to arrest various senior US politicians. This happened recently with an attempt by a human rights group to prosecute an Israeli gerneral over the west bank 'invasion'. The government couldn't stop the warrant being issued but got round it by the politican not leaving the plane when it landed in London and the police claiming that an El Al plane was Israeli soil and they didn't have jurisdiction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
No it was very deliberate on the UK's part. The concerns were that there are a few members of certain Irish cultural organisations happily living in the US and it would wreck the peace process to extradite them, while NOT extraditing them would raise objections from the other side. And, it's rather easier to bring a private prosecution for say war crimes in the UK - and the government didn't want the embarrassment of…
If this were the case, wouldn't it be better not to have the treaty in the first place? Then no questions are asked at all.
And what was wrong with the old treaty, apart from the inconvenience of having to produce enough evidence to satisfy a British judge?
Is 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.
It'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…
Except that we don't have the problem with ICC when it benefits us. If they rule against our interest we declare "that doesn't apply to us." Well, fine then, Germany should have declared "Nuremberd trials don't apply to us", Serbia should have said "Milosevic's trial doesn't apply to us." and so on.
The reason ICC exists it so enforce human rights abuses and crimes against humanity. These are perpetraited by terrorist states that use fear and intimidation around the world without any regard to human life. It seems to me there is a need for ICC today just like there was a need for it after WWII.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it was very deliberate on the UK's part. The concerns were that there are a few members of certain Irish cultural organisations happily living in the US and it would wreck the peace process to extradite them, while NOT extraditing them would raise objections from the other side. And, it's rather easier to bring a private prosecution for say war crimes in the UK - and the government didn't want the embarrassment of…
[citation needed] If this were the case, wouldn't it be better not to have the treaty in the first place? Then no questions are asked at all. And what was wrong with the old treaty, apart from the inconvenience of having to produce enough evidence to satisfy a British judge?
Hopefully the privacy concerns can be worked out asap.
It'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.
I would love to see the EU keep the US in check by saying "no" to us more often. (The US has no trouble telling the EU "no", after all.) China does it, so why not the EU?