theavonlady 2 Posted February 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 07 2003,12:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Look at the bottom note on this page." Another example of how its OK doing stuff, as long as it isnt done to you in return.<span id='postcolor'> Is there a similar case to these Mexicans case where the US approached the ICJ because of a US citizen on trial in another country? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Longinius 1 Posted February 7, 2003 "Is there a similar case to these Mexicans case where the US approached the ICJ because of a US citizen on trial in another country?" No, most likely because no other nation that cares for the ICJ would dare screw over an American that way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bernadotte 0 Posted February 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 07 2003,03:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So, was it just an accident that they caught a photo of the exact moment that inspectors arrived at that sanitised site?<span id='postcolor'> What?<span id='postcolor'> I guess you missed that part of Powell's presentation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted February 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 07 2003,12:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Is there a similar case to these Mexicans case where the US approached the ICJ because of a US citizen on trial in another country?" No, most likely because no other nation that cares for the ICJ would dare screw over an American that way.<span id='postcolor'> So, then, your example isn't really an example ...................... .............................. yet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Longinius 1 Posted February 7, 2003 "So, then, your example isn't really an example ...................... .............................. yet." Yes it is. It was an example of the US going against international law. I think the example still stands. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted February 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 07 2003,14:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"So, then, your example isn't really an example ...................... .............................. yet." Yes it is. It was an example of the US going against international law. I think the example still stands.<span id='postcolor'> I thought you were referring to an actual reciprocal case. Never mind then. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joshnolan225 0 Posted February 7, 2003 my professor of international studies at UVA, my uncle who is an american policy professor at Yale, CNN, and CBS, those are my sources, sorry i replying so late, at USMCB Quantico for Orientation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PitViper 0 Posted February 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 07 2003,03:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And, on a side note, this is not the only case where the US are in violation with international law and human rights. Recently there was a case where three Mexicans were brought to trial, found guilty and sentenced to death. They were not allowed to have representation in court from their homeland, which aparantly is a breach of International Law.<span id='postcolor'> What? Â since when are foreign nationals not subject to the laws of their host nation? Â Since when does their homeland come into play other than diplomatically? Â We're not talking about soldiers and SOFA agreements here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Die Alive 0 Posted February 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (pathfinder @ Feb. 07 2003,00:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ummm, not to disrupt the flow of your conversation but tonight on a news show they said that Iraq was arming civis with AK's. Â Normally dictatorships don't allow this unless their desperate or as propaganda. Â If true and if the guns actually function ,does this make Iraq civis legitimate targets?<span id='postcolor'> Oompa loompa, doopa-dee-doo Will the real Miss Iraq please step forward. -=Die Alive=- Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted February 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Feb. 07 2003,14:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 07 2003,03:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And, on a side note, this is not the only case where the US are in violation with international law and human rights. Recently there was a case where three Mexicans were brought to trial, found guilty and sentenced to death. They were not allowed to have representation in court from their homeland, which aparantly is a breach of International Law.<span id='postcolor'> What? Â since when are foreign nationals not subject to the laws of their host nation? Â Since when does their homeland come into play other than diplomatically? Â We're not talking about soldiers and SOFA agreements here.<span id='postcolor'> That's not what he is saying. They are subject to US laws but by international agreement they should be allowed to have legal help from a representative from their country. That's what is questioned, not if they should be subject to US law or not. Nobody disputes that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Longinius 1 Posted February 7, 2003 "That's not what he is saying. They are subject to US laws but by international agreement they should be allowed to have legal help from a representative from their country. That's what is questioned, not if they should be subject to US law or not. Nobody disputes that." Exactly Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joshnolan225 0 Posted February 7, 2003 is that a real pic cause i feel sorry for those iraqi men if those are the women they live with anyway, american rules of engagement are if you are fired upon then you are to return fire, civies or not they shoot at americans, they are dropped, just like the somalies in 96. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joshnolan225 0 Posted February 7, 2003 to the mexico thing, they didnt commit a crime in their country, they didnt commit a crime under mexican laws, they commiteted it against american law, and in america Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PitViper 0 Posted February 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 07 2003,08:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's not what he is saying. They are subject to US laws but by international agreement they should be allowed to have legal help from a representative from their country. That's what is questioned, not if they should be subject to US law or not. Nobody disputes that.<span id='postcolor'> a representative? Â as in a diplomat or a lawyer? If its a diplomat, it enters the realm of politics and leaves the legal realm. I don't see why they would need a Mexican lawyer. Â What does a Mexican laywer know about U.S law? Â There certainly is no shortage of lawyers here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted February 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Die Alive @ Feb. 07 2003,08:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (pathfinder @ Feb. 07 2003,00:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ummm, not to disrupt the flow of your conversation but tonight on a news show they said that Iraq was arming civis with AK's. Normally dictatorships don't allow this unless their desperate or as propaganda. If true and if the guns actually function ,does this make Iraq civis legitimate targets?<span id='postcolor'> <span id='postcolor'> Hate to say it, but I told you so. (okay, I don't hate to say it, I love saying it! And BTW, I don't see much wrong with how these women look, there are 2 that I find fairly attractive. Come take a picture of 20 completely average Canadian or American women in those clothes and no makeup, we'll see how much better this will look, and I'll visit you in the washroom when you get sick. Diss... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Longinius 1 Posted February 7, 2003 "to the mexico thing, they didnt commit a crime in their country, they didnt commit a crime under mexican laws, they commiteted it against american law, and in america " Yes, we know that. But that isnt what we are talking about. "a representative? as in a diplomat or a lawyer? If its a diplomat, it enters the realm of politics and leaves the legal realm. I don't see why they would need a Mexican lawyer. What does a Mexican laywer know about U.S law? There certainly is no shortage of lawyers here. " As in a legal representative from your home country. That representative would probably be acting like an advisor / enterpritor between the domestic lawyer and the client. It isnt that strange that you are entitled to legal help from your home country. Would you want to be caught in a country where you dont speak the language, dont know the laws, dont know the culture, have no friends and no help? Guilty or not you'd be totally at the mercy of whoever was appointed to assist you, without any chance of knowing what was going on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bernadotte 0 Posted February 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 07 2003,01:o0)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">UK Can't Write Own Intelligence Reports<span id='postcolor'> About a day later, and CNN has picked up on it too. Â But seriously, I hope that someday deliberately misinforming the public on such matters will be handled as a criminal offence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PitViper 0 Posted February 7, 2003 Article from Asia times: Germany's leading role in arming Iraq Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Albert Schweitzer 10 Posted February 7, 2003 I am surprised you consider the article worthwile enough to post it here. Whether this article has interesting facts does not count to me. Fact is that it attempts to punish the germans for their pacifist position. A silly slander, nothing else. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PitViper 0 Posted February 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Feb. 07 2003,11:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am  surprised you consider the article worthwile enough to post it here. Whether this article has interesting facts does not count to me. Fact is that it attempts to punish the germans for their pacifist position. A silly slander, nothing else.<span id='postcolor'> heh.  I read it as Shroeder and German Intelligence withholding information regarding NBC weapons in Iraq.  It maintains that Shroder is playing to the pacifists because German fingerprints are all over Iraq. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bernadotte 0 Posted February 7, 2003 Either consciously or subconsciously, everyone has their own way of  sizing up another person's intelligence.  Many rely on certain words that serve as touchstones because they are often mispronounced by the... uhh... "intellectually challenged."  For me, one of these words is nuclear. The correct pronunciation is:  new - klee - ur I've just heard Bush pronounce it:  new - cue - ler In the words of a famous baseball game announcer, "That guy always ceases to amaze me." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Die Alive 0 Posted February 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 07 2003,12:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Either consciously or subconsciously, everyone has their own way of  sizing up another person's intelligence.  Many rely on certain words that serve as touchstones because they are often mispronounced by the... uhh... "intellectually challenged."  For me, one of these words is nuclear. The correct pronunciation is:  new - klee - ur I've just heard Bush pronounce it:  new - cue - ler In the words of a famous baseball game announcer, "That guy always ceases to amaze me."<span id='postcolor'> I dont know what you are talking aboot. Must be some farn thing. -=Die Alive=- Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bernadotte 0 Posted February 7, 2003 Â lol... A CNN talking head has just pronounced hegemony: Â Hedgey-money Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
foxer 0 Posted February 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Feb. 07 2003,16:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Article from Asia times: Germany's leading role in arming Iraq<span id='postcolor'> The lawsuit alleges that 31 companies from 11 countries were major suppliers to Iraq: Germany -- 14 companies Netherlands -- 3 companies Switzerland -- 3 companies France -- 2 companies Austria -- 2 companies United States -- 2 Singapore, India, Egypt, Spain and Luxembourg each had one major supplier. * Twenty-five other companies are named as minor suppliers i posted this awhile ago,well something like it.. LINK Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted February 7, 2003 Bush is a bad public speaker, that doesn't make him stupid. Clinton didn't know what the word "is" meant. THAT is stupid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
