| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Comments:
<0> Jostein: fairly sure you've violated drinking laws
<1> K_F: ah. right
<0> I know I have anyways
<1> Ive violeted norwegian drinking laws as well, when you mention it :P
<2> NASA says her status as a astronaut is unchanged...wtf is that all about
<3> wlfshmn : if the other end of those transactions is in america, against american law, then that's a fair game prosecution if you ask me.
<0> Jostein: no you haven't
<3> which is different than american federal law extending beyond american borders.
<0> Jostein: drinking while underage is not illegal
<2> Jostein, i'm sure you've violated all sorts of drinking laws everywhere :)
<1> dogbert2: hehehe
<2> K_F, it is in the US
<1> K_F: its illegal to drink in public
<0> dogbert2: "Ive violeted norwegian drinking laws"
<1> watch me NOT bring a beer to the park, ok? :P
<0> Jostein: right... the cops only laughted when we had a tralley of spirits though
<2> Jostein violates boozes laws all the time :)
<0> Jostein: we were walking around drinking on the peer
<4> http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/cuba/ccigar2.pdf
<1> anyway
<0> Jostein: hehe, and at one point our cl*** party (party tram) had two police cars as escort at all time :)
<3> america, land of the free, home of the brave.
<4> NineVolt: look at the bottom paragraph of page one of that PDF
<1> my point is. if foreigner "breaking US law" while not in the US, gets detained at the airport, that is the one and only reason you need NOT to go there
<0> NineVolt: yeah, that is the irony, americans keep talking about freedom of speech yet doesn't have any
<0> Jostein: jup
<2> TBT...that section is blatantly unconstitutional
<4> dogbert2: you think?
<4> :D
<2> oh yeah...no doubt...
<0> dogbert2: isn't most laws over there..
<4> No one cares about the constitution anymore.
<1> K_F: if its constitutional or not depends on if the judges gets bribed^Wlobbied as well as the politicians
<3> Regulations prohibit persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from purchasing, transporting, importing, or otherwise dealing in or engaging in any transactions with respect to any merchandise outside the United States
<4> Bush is pandering to those old ex-cuban farts from Florida
<4> that got him elected
<3> subject to the jurisdiction of the united states.
<4> yes. as a US citizen you are ALWAYS subject to the juristdiction of the US
<2> the fact that the US gov't has an embargo (a stupid one at that) against Cuba because of castro doesn't MEAN that it's citizens must comply with that embargo when they are NOT legally in the US...also, who in the **** would actually prosecute, and where would the evidence be?
<3> unless you leave the US.
<4> and never return?
<3> and its holdings.
<3> if you want to never return to US jurisdiction, yes.
<4> obviously they wont come and pick you up in a black helicoper for smoking a cigar,
<3> but if you don't need to spend the remainder of your life smoking cubans, you can come back :P
<2> TBT, if i'm in Canada, i'm not, unless I've broken a law in the US and they want to extradite me, also, usually only works for felony charges, anything else is a waste of $$$
<3> marc emery
<3> no extradition.
<0> NineVolt: I just love how they just enacted a law that requires you to have a reflection vest in your car here in Norway
<4> the cuban embargo is all felony territory.
<3> a reflection vest?
<0> NineVolt: it is punishable not to have one, but there is no punishment
<0> NineVolt: http://listing.hk.business.yahoo.com/images/products/2862/98711.jpg
<0> whatever you call it
<2> and I don't think the feds are gonna prosecute me for smoking or possessing two-ten cigars while out of the country :)
<3> oh
<3> that's retarded.
<3> dogbert2 : aside from the issue of enforcement, i don't believe that law applies regardless.
<0> NineVolt: some idiot got ran over on the highway
<4> dogbert2: no, they wont, of course. but this conversation started with me lamenting that I'm in a different posistion that most.
<2> agree, 9V
<4> NineVolt: that document says the state department disagrees with you.
<0> NineVolt: communistic as NO is figured it wasn't the idiot's fault, but the other's
<3> no it doesn't.
<2> TBT, the US gov't p***es laws which make little or no sense
<0> dogbert2: most goverments does
<3> it clearly says "subject to the jurisdiction of the united states"
<4> dogbert2: yeah, but unfortunately I'm compelled to observe all of them regardless of whether I agree or not.
<4> NineVolt: are you a US citizen?
<0> dogbert2: blantly violates the govts primary purpose, to provide a stable framework for the markets
<3> yes.
<4> then you're under us jurisdiction. period.
<3> and that doesn't change the fact that US jurisdiction doesn't extend beyond their holdings.
<3> no.
<3> i'm not if i leave the country.
<3> and then i am if i come back.
<3> it's that simple.
<0> NineVolt: depends which p***port you travel under
<5> NineVolt: so, you have what, a quarter million soldiers in iraq that US law doesn't apply to?
<4> yeah, you are.
<3> wlfshmn : exactly.
<3> but iraq is a us holding.
<4> NineVolt: you're completely in error
<4> US law most definitely applies to US soldiers wherever they are.
<5> NineVolt: Guess you won't mind if they start enforcing Iraqi justice then.
<3> is that why contractors in iraq are only prosecutable by mliitary tribunals?
<3> yea, that really sounds like us federal law.
<3> i'm afraid i'm more right than i want to be.
<3> see the aegis video.
<4> military tribunsals are more expedient than shipping people back to the US for federal trial
<3> with a guy on the back of a humvee mowing down civilian automobiles on the highway.
<5> TenBaseT_: Iraq isn't a US holding though, atleast that is what you keep saying. I suppose The soldiers themselves are the property of uncle sam though
<6> property?
<4> wlfshmn: yeah, they are, and typically US bases are seen as little outposts of american soil.
<3> the military tribunal that tried him, after seeing the video (which was available all over the internet) concluded that there was no evidence of any crimes being committed.
<5> woho. I manged to move the conversation to Iraq in two sentences. ;)
<0> wlfshmn: :)
<5> OldMonk: basically property, yes
<3> i believe if the US federal jurisdiction extended to iraq, those soldiers would've been guaranteed a trial.
<3> by the constitution.
<4> US soldiers are in a special case.
<4> they are subject to the UCMJ, not civilian law.
<7> nah, we all know that when it's `war' nobody's guaranteed a trial. see guantanamo for once.
<7> K_F: reference appreciated by the way.
<4> the UCMJ exists because there are different rules for wartime conduct with respect to searches, seizures, and justifiable homicide.
<0> tommi: xikar?
<0> tommi: sure.. no problem
<7> K_F: indeed.
<4> NineVolt: however, we're digressing. you're dead wrong about US law not applying to you while you're abroad.
<3> again, they were not soldiers.
<3> these are civilian contracts that i'm talking about.
<4> why have you been calling them soldiers then?
<4> < NineVolt> i believe if the US federal jurisdiction extended to iraq, those soldiers would've been guaranteed a trial.
<3> because effectively, that's what they are.
<0> NineVolt: not really, they are mercenaries
<3> they're people paid and armed by the US to engage in combat abroad.
<0> NineVolt: there is a difference
<3> not really.
<4> yes really.
<0> really
<3> i'd argue that most of america's army is mercenaries.
<3> they fight for cash/college aid.
<3> not some moral principles or nationalism.
<2> Friends and colleagues are baffled over the allegations. One astronaut told ABC News that the astronaut corps at the Johnson Space Center was "totally, totally stunned. Everyone is just stunned."
<0> dogbert2: great vocabulary
<4> PMC's are now under the primary jurisdiction of the iraqi government, but could still theoretically be tried in the US for violations of federal law.
<5> dogbert2: yeah. mace does that. it clears up after a while though
<8> yeah, PMCs used to be subject ONLY to iraqi law.
<3> unless the law just recently changed, foreign contractors could _not_ be tried in iraqi courts.
<8> which was very convenient.
<3> only us military tribunals.
<0> dogbert2: http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article1629946.ece is the norwegian report of the matter, has some pictures :)
<2> well, Nowak is screwed...she'll be court-martialed
<8> because there was no iraqi law.
<4> NineVolt: there WAS no iraqi courts until recently.
<5> The US doesn't recognize international court atleast
<3> i find that hard to believe.
<3> saddam ran a country without courts? :P
<0> http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1630597.ece is actually rather interesting
<4> NineVolt: while the iraqi government was the Coalitiion provisional authority, US tribunals were the only thing around. now that the iraqis have their own sovreignty, they got courts back
<3> or was getting rid of those just a part of de-baath-ification.
<4> yeah
<4> after the invasion the government was the CPA
<6> dinner
<3> so for a few years after shock and awe, the iraqi people had no judicial system at all?
<8> NineVolt: correct
<3> o_O
<2> heh, K_F
<4> NineVolt: correct. they had the US occupation, just like germany and Japan after WWII
<3> and we're wondering why it's flooded with criminals now? :P
<8> NineVolt: which made it very convenient for PMCs
Return to
#linux
or
Go to some related
logs:
play versions.txt
#MissKitten
#linux
#linux
#AllNiteCafe
#linuxhelp
blonmu
redhat logfile useing
#AllNiteCafe
roxanne duncan
|
|
