Donnervogel

Well, If they attack the US and is caught by the US do you think the the US will hand him over to a government that is seeking help from a terrorists to help run itself? As far as I am informed by far the most arrests of Insurgents/"Terrorists" are made by Iraqi forces and many are given into Iraqi custody even when arrested by US forces. You have to see that the most of them are not high profile or Al Quaida figures. They are rather criminals or rebel militias or something like that. However the US deports high profile figures to Guantanamo too. But that's rather the exception, they wouldn't have enough room in Guantanmo anyway to detain everyone they arrest there. But the deportation are not new under the MCA of 2006 so they already did it all the time they were in Iraq and it obviously didn't make Iraq a safe place.

This situation is what I was hinting at. Since the territory ownership is not clearly defined it offers a way to suspend the US constitution since technically one can argue it is not US territory and therefore the US constitution does not apply. However I find this moraly very questionable for a nation comitted to export freedom and democracy into the world... This is clearly wrong as the act does not deal with Iraq (or Afghanistan) at all. The act only deals with military comissions and also is thought to be specifically developed to deal with people arrested in the "war on terror" as US media likes to call it. Those people so far have been held for example in the US military installation in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This is because the US administration is for some reason afraid to try those people under US federal law (wich has plenty of laws regarding terrorism and other crimes that those people are blamed with). In guantanamo they can be held without charge indefinitly. But due to growing criticism from the international community about this clear violation of human rights and the geneva convention the Bush administration declared that those people will recieve a military trial in the near future. Not suprisingly shortly afterwards the MCA of 2006 was proposed to the congress. The central points of that document are the rules under wich "alien unlawful combatants" can be tried, wich is what the people being held in guantanamo are labeled as. This won't have any direct effect on the situation in iraq because. 1. Iraqi insurgents and terrorists comitting acts of violence in Iraq are primarily subject to Iraqi law. 2. The US already has the posibility since before the Iraq war to hold "unlawful combatants" in guantanamo without charge indefinitly.

Well I think I have to start at the very end of you posting: If you would read what I write you came across this: I also strongly recoment to read the context of this quote wich will reveal that my main point is not that the whole system is corrupt but that it is unfair and unjust.Back to your replies: Heh well this is exactly my point and it is simply wrong to accept that. A justice system is supposed to be fair, that's the point of it. It should offer fair solutions to legal conflicts and breaches so people will refrain from taking justice in their own hands but at the same time can live their lives without unnecessary restrictions. It is not relevant if the people in the comitee are civilians or not in this case, the ruleset under wich they operate is relevant. Of course senate needs to give consent but in the US the senate is very rarely a serious opposition to the president because of the possibility to issue a "recess appointment" wich means the president doesn't have to get congressional consent during that (short) period. This instrument has been used by US presidents a number of times already. to 2) You are correct. However I don't see how this conflicts with my point. To sub point 3): The problem is the good cause clause wich is open to subjective interpretation. This is also known in other legal systems (I believe it is also in the US federal law somewhere) however many non US constitutional courts have ruled that such a "good cause" clause is a violation of human rights. 4) Of course it can, again I don't see how it conflicts with my point where I was talking about the US supreme court. Of course they can. I implicitly stated that the possibility exists. The problem is that the military justice is not bound to allow it. Otherwise any iraqi that got his house dammaged or a relative killed as result of the invasion of Iraq by the US forces or the occupation or the *whatever they are doing now there* could open a case in the US military sytem to get compensation. This obviously is not possible.

@Sophion-Black I am really amused that you actually answered to this. Obviously I know how the US defines that term (see reply to billybob). That however doesn't change the fact that it is a totally perverted thing making no legal sense. @billybob2002 yes I read the definitions of "(un)lawful combatant" but it simply makes no sense. Not legally nor in praxis. It is simply a crippeled definition to rob people of their right in order to hold them without charge so one can conveniently violate human rights. There are enough names already for the enemy the US is facing. Thhose "unlawful enemy combatants" are simply rebels/insurgents/guerillias/criminals/freedom fighters/terrorists. And as I said already I fail to understand how the US aggression against Iraq was "lawful" but this is an enntirely different topic. However there are enough laws already to deal with terrorists/rebels if they comit illegal acts. The only difference is that then they actually get a chance to defend themselfs in a court wich has to be held within a specific time after their arrest and they actually get to know of what they are being accused. But since abiding the law seems to be a problem to the Bush administration they prefer to suspend the rights of those individuals. Wich raised the question for me: Why would it be so impossible to convict those people that you have to suspend their trials for as long as possible? I mean the Bush administration is very quick to call them unlawful and yet it is unable to convict them. Something seems very strange to me there. Well I actually implicitly did but if your read the definitions of those violation scattered across the entire document you see that under many circumstances it allows somethinhg like "light" torture. Meaning it prohibids "severe" torture and such things. Now "severe" is very open to interpretation for one and also it implies that you can use methods that do not cause "severe" mental or physical dammage. And lastly about the habeas corpus issues. As you can read not even your source can be very certain on it and this exactly the problem. And as I explained earlier the problem is not that US citizens are allowed to be tried under that law. But the problem is that you lose too many constitutional right if some malicious person accuses you of being an "alien unlawful combatant". Even if they could not convict you (but I think they could given their possibilities under the MCA and other military justice documents to deny you from doing certain things) they could still hold you indefinitly without charging you. The specific weaknes of this law is that the accusation of being an "alien unlawful combatant" is entirely subjective since it does not require a conviction. Basicly they can imply that you are a criminal before you have been convicted of a crime. And this is a grave violation of a fundamental legal principle. Once this has happened you lose all the rights that woul allow you to appeal to a court to report anything illegal that happened during you arrest or wich led to your arrest. So basicly you lost legal protection then. And that aside. This law is by itself a grave violation of the UN human rights charter and the geneva convention wich makes it illegal per se as the US has signed those documents. And even then it is still a violation of the US constitution because there are not enough protections for non US citizens but the US constitution takes effect for every person in the US - citizen or not (this is alss an issue with the Guantanamo situation) Basicly the US constitution guarantees the habeas corpus rights to any person on US territory but the MCA takes it away from some of those people wich clearly violates the US constitution under these circumstances.

So you think that when a US convoy gets attacked and they raid a house where there is incoming fire from. And they see a guy in the house wearing a mask and holding a gun. They can't say on the spot that that guy is an enemy combatant? Lets go in more detail: Your base is under an RPG attack. quickly, get to your position and notice a guy 150m out with an RPG on his shoulder. do you think it will hold up in court that that guy just "happened" to be in the area? NO! that would be wasting time!. Next Scenario: Your walking down the street and hear gunfire two blocks away. you dash to the corner to see what's going on and see Allied troops shooting at your position. Confused, a man runs by you in the opposite direction with web gear on. You warn the man to halt but he fails to obey the order. Thinking fast you trip the runner and hold him down. After your allies notice your presence they stop firing and approach you about the situation. You are then told that they saw that man plant a bomb and run. Should he be arrested for as an enemy combatant? Your not getting the point: The person has to be captured during combat. Your thinking to hard, they can't walk up to someone and yell "He fired at me! your under arrest!" Your CO and the CO above him will ask: "where's your proof?" Then you suddenly realize what it is like to be an E-1 again. Because they are NOT going to come under fire from the Red Cross because of you. You didn't get what I wrote. I didn't talk about Iraq. I talked about how this law (despite being equally illegal when applied to foreigners) can easily backfire on anyone in the US. This law offers a way to suspend most of the legal protection the US constitution offers of anyone being accused of being an "alien unlwaful combatant". No matter if he actually is one or not. Because once they say you are you cannot go and complain about them doing illegal things with you. You are welcome to read what I said again. Besides I don't think anybody on this planet can say what an "alien unlawful combatant" actually is and how it differs from a "lawful combatant" that atatcks a country preemptively based on false evidence.

Well first thanks for a constructive answer this time. I don't really see how to apply this to the military system. My point simply was that if a system is already openly violating international and constitutional laws on other procedures and it is considered "legal" by them their opinion of legality must be totally flawed. And as pointed out in another of my points this really makes me sceptic of such trials because the same people that are responsible for initiating the earlier laws can also influence other trials. Well this is a very awkward subjet and very complicated because of the details. But since your sources and mine seem disagree I don't really know what source to believe more. I use an article in "Jahrbuch Menschenrechte 2000" about the ICC wich is going into some detail with the US military and civil justice system. Anyway here are some points I got from my Source: The president has a role as he appoints the judges of the highest military court, The United States Court of Military Appeals. The congress (and president) enacted the laws since those are federal laws. But the problem is that that neither the congress not the supreme court can overturn decissions made by a military court or stop ongoing trials. Although the president can. This is not to be confused with the posibility that the Supreme court can reevaluate decissions made by the Court of Military Appeals. Because this will never "overwrite" a military decission but merley force the military to find a new military decission. Also in the military justice system it is not guaranteed that you can appeal to any higher instance for that matter. Any instance can simply decide that no further appeals can be made. Well since those unfair procedures and decissions are legal under military law a commander is doing nothing wrong by influencing a sentence. Wich basicly means the whole system is unfair in this point. Blame the Bush Adminstration and not the military justice system for the agreement. The agreement is one thing and I don't really care who is responsible for it. As long as it exists I can't accept a trial conducted under those circumstances a fair trial. But the other point is a general military justice thing wich exists in any military justice system I know (thus none I know is really fair). Since they are not civil courts they are neither bound to listen to nor to prosecute any civil claims. Especially when they come from foreigners. Basicly the points involving Iraqi civillians are the most serious reasons why those trials are unfair. Because they simply ignore Iraqi souvereignity and compromise the rule of law in Iraq. For example if you travel to Switzerland you have to follow Swiss laws too. You don't have the right to bear arms here but you can drink liquor when you're 18 years old. And nobody would accept it that you would be allowed to carry private weapons with you without proper Swiss weapons license simply because you are US citizen. Well my main points are that the system is unjust and unfair wich is adequately shown by pointing out flaws. The corrupted part is when they introduce laws that are violating international agreements and human rights (wich the US signed) and when they make "agreements" from their position of power that subvert the justice systems of other nations by implicitly putting their citizens above that nation's law.

Yeah that's pretty naive. As I just explained they can simply accuse you and even though it is illegal you can't defend yourself because you lost the right to get a fair defense simply because of the accusation (not conviction). So if they come to you and declare you "unlawful combatant" because it's the joke of the day you cannot say, hey, wait, I want to see a judge so he can decide wether this is legal or not. It is an exploit in your law. That's the sad fact. Even though it might not have been intended to be exploited to accuse others than "unlawful combatants" it offers the possibility and to simply trust people they would not absue it is pretty damn naive. Oh there is a pretty damn huge difference and it points exactly into the heart of this debate. If a country violates the geneva convention (wich they often do) although it signed it it means the country acted illegally. And in a democratic state with the right to a fair trial for everyone this makes a huge difference. Because you can in your trial claim that there has been a violation or human rights or the geneva convention and use this to your defense. And if they don't give you those rights, others can still appeal to a different court in your defense. A lot of people have already been saved from being illegally convicted based on this in many countries you listed, especially in modern constitutional democracies. While when the country simply has a law that says "no geneva convention for you" you are royaly fucked. Because you simply get no legal protection is these matters in that country. And this is corrupting the entire system. It also encourages other nations to simply say "ok when they don't honor our agreements we won't do it aswell" and then we go straight back to the 1860's.

Fair enough. Only I don't see why you disagree when you just respond with what I said. You need to elaborate with something that differs from my arguments to show your disagreement. counter quote: And I repeat again. Please read my postings. It's simply leading to nowhere when I have to repeat everything 3 times and you still just respond with what I said. Just for your information. My argument rotates around the fact that the US Soldiers accused of murder and rape get tried by a US military court wich is part of the military justice system and as such is: 1. under the same authority that in another case (military comission act of 2006) openly uses illegal and easily exploitable laws that violate the US constitution. 2. Is subordordinate to the president directly - who singed the laws above - but not subordinate to the congress or supreme court as far as I'm informed. 3. Is known to be protective of high level figures even when there is reasonable evidence about their possible involvement. 4. because of being part of the military hierarchy these courts/comissions can be ordered what to decide or how to proceed by superiors in their CoC. (Which has happened a lot in war time) 5. No foreigner can appeal to those comissions as long as they are not invited to do so by the court itself. As such they cannot bring forward their claims of compensation and they cannot have a private trial for other violations of the law than those that are part of the original trial. 6. is not bound to the laws of the country where the crimes took place (Iraq) 7. denies an Iraqi investigation into the affair because of corrupted agreements. Of course I'm pesimistic when a country that writes freedom on it's banner, sits on a huge stockpile of WMDs and has the potentially strongest armed force on the planet passes laws that bypass those freedoms. But this topic (Military comission act of 2006) should be discussed in the USA politics thread.

I dunno why I bother discussing with people that simply don't read my arguments properly. For the third time. I know the act has nothing to do with the trial of the soldiers but then again it has to do with the intentions of those responsible in the justice system. And because I can't be arsed to repeat once more what I've stated already twice you are welcome to reread it. While I doubt that (having a bit experience with military justice) it's not fair and just per se that iraqis can't investigate crimes comitted on their soil and under their souvereignity and punish the offenders according to their law. It is also neither fair nor just for the Iraqi victims and their relatives to be robbed of any legal options for reparation and investigation that are granted to them by their laws because of some dubious agreements between the USA and Iraq that probably were forced upon the Iraqi government anyway.

And you fail to see that once you get accused of being an "alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States..." you lose the right to be told why you are held, what evidence they have against you and to appeal to a court because of an illegal arrest and possibly also the rights granted to POWs under the geneva convention wich - even though I am impressed by your country name listing skills - is not "optional" by law for most of the countries you listed. Actually only the US comes to mind that has signed the convention and at the same time passed a law to abandon it under certain circumstances - wich as stated in the convention is a violation of the convention aswell. So basicly. Once they point the finger at you and call you illegal combatant you lose all your rights no matter what citizens you are or not because you are unable to appeal to a court and demand to be told why you are held or bring forward legal complains about your arrest/treatment and you even lose the right to get a fair defense because they can simply introduce "classified evidence" against you wich neither you nor your lawyer will ever see or know about. Also they may torture you to some extend as long as you don't suffer from "serious physical or mental dammage" because of it - yay! This law simply offers a way to bypass the constitution of the USA because it puts you in a position that once you are accused you cannot invoke any legal procedures in your defense that would be bound to the constitution.

Oh and why not? After all it is the same authority (military justice system) that is responsible for the courts that deals with alleged "unlawful enemy combatants" (one of the most perverted phrases ever invented) and for the trials of those soldiers. Why shoudl I trust them to be suddenly "fair" when it comes to punishing their own soldiers while they simply are violating the UN human rights charter when dealing with "unlawful enemy combatants". I'm not as naive think that a corrupted system can suddenly become fair and balanced when their own interests are attacked. Well yes but that's exactly the problem. We've already seen the problem with these procedures with the Abu Graib case where only very low level figures were punished while high level figures didn't even have to appear in court despite a lot of allegations of their involvement. Now in this case the thing is different though. Iraqi civilians (not combatants or anything like that) have been the victims of those soldiers on Iraqi soil under Iraqi souverignty. So it is clearly the right of Iraqis to try those people because they violated Iraqi law and the Iraqi victims and their relatives would have to have the possibility to turn to their *own* justice system to demand reparations/punishment if this was a fair procedure. But since it obviously is not the soldiers get tried by US *military* courts wich takes them out of reach of the Iraqi victims/relatives and also denies an Iraqi investigation into illegal acts commited in their soil. This is clearly not "fair" and "just". Even though it might be legal technically because of bilateral agreements. But legal does not mean "fair" and "just".

1. I didn't say it had to do with those murders. If you would read what I write you can see that I make a differention between the issues. But I was merley pointing out that when a government is even openly admiting to plan to abolish fundamental rights it makes me doubt their intention to be fair and "just". 2. I know such agreements with the Iraqi government exist but this is not what I consider "justice" because it is simply a cheap way of exploiting one's military power to avoiding what is considered "justice" in Iraq and thus this - for me - sheds strong doubt on the intention to strive for justice.

Yes, blame the actions of those soldiers on President Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld. I hope, not really, they are found not gulity so you can on a tirade against the United States military justice system. Yeah "justice" system... With stuff like this I can't take the US "justice" system serious: Military Comission Act of 2006 If your military justice system already need to take away basic human rights from those alleged "alien unlawful enemy combatants" (there goes "in dubio pro reo" aswell) to try them I don't think I can trust that the rights of Iraqi civilians are adequately protected by your military courts. Those soldiers would have to be tried by an Iraqi court for it to be considered "justice" anyway, as the crimes were comitted in Iraq, not the USA.

You keep making in hard, don't you? I told you I got you general point about realistic games but also I tell you for about the third time I was referring to your criticism on the Thief series in my postings. And you keep mentioning the Thief series as a specific example so stop acting as if you didn't. If you apply your points to specific examples you have to live with it that other people will refer to them too.

I don't think so. All the guys understanding German will be busy to play the game You'd have to find a commercial tranlator to work instead of play I guess After all translating all those briefings in decent english (not babelfish senselessness) is quite some work to do in your spare time.

The only one digging himself out of a hole is you. You should read my postings again. I went a long way explaining that Thief is a totally inaccurate representation of medieval Europe. To put it simple. It is not "realistic". By far not. And it is not meant to be, as it is meant to represent the Thief world. But I also see you didn't really bother reading it correctly as you refered to one of my quotes in totally wrong context above. If you want a "deeply historical" feel then read a history book to start with. At least it could tell you what to expect from Medieval Europe and when to expect wich style/fashion at what time and wich level of infrastructure/technology and what kind of social structure and population density in what places etc. You would come to the conclusion that Thief without the Fantasy elements is a setting that never ever existed on this planet like that. It mixes up different eras/fashion/social models (from ancient Mediterranean to Modern Europe) and different places/culture/fashion (From the Caribbean to Asia) In other words... it's a Fantasy world.

Well my point was specifically aimed at the fact that Thief is a well known series set in a pseudo-medieval-fantasy-sci-fi world. Thus everybody knowing the series would expect such a game. And even if you don't. The Lord Of the Rings doesn't imply any fantasy either just from the name - as far as I'm concerned it could be about a noble goldsmith making nice jewelery. You've got to have some knowledge about what it is to imply that it's a fantasy story. Same with Thief. Well the Thief devs went through a great deal of trouble to recreate the Thief world and that's what they did. There isn't much historical accuracy. You could mention tons of things that are historically inaccurate if you imply it to represent the Medieval times in Europe. (Houses, Fashion, Swerer Systems, Roads, City Sizes, Lock picking/locks etc) . If you remove the fantasy and sci-fi elements you're not gonna have much left except some cliché movie style middle ages scenery that is not like most of the real middle ages were. But I get your point that you'd like a historically accurate game for a change and it would be interesting to see if that would offer much entertainment (personally I'm sceptical). Just don't expect it in something like Thief. Such a game would have a totally different look. Of course it would also depend on the setting of the game, especially what exact time it would be set in. For example there weren't many locks to pick in the middle ages in europe. Only very few primitive lock constructions survived into the early middle ages from the ancient times where locks were well known. Most locking mechanims were much more primitive though and real locks (to use with keys) were a privilege of the rich - even though even many rich people did not have access to them. Locks started coming back again in the late middle ages and the Renaissance when they got rediscovered by studying ancient techniques but it took time until the 18th century until the first new lock design was invented wich eventually led to modern locks.

Oh come on. If you had followed the story a bit you would know they didn't stick the electrical stuff and elevators in there "without thinking". The whole thing is greatly elaborated. Play Thief 2 if you want to know even more. And it IS a fantasy world after all. That's what the story is and has always been from Thief 1 on. Or do you complain too that there are Wizzards and Orcs in Lord of the Rings? Besides I might add the Thief series is a great and original story and the only one ruining immersion is yourself by getting pointlessly annoyed about things that don't match up with your unfounded expectations. Just open up a bit. The Mental Asylum "mission" is going to freak you out. In a good way. That's got to be the scariest "mission" I ever played in a computer game. And it would be simply boring if it was "realistic".

Well that situation is different though. In Denmark political and religious cartoons are legal and go under the freedom of the press. Some muslims got outraged and partially succeeded in forcing European governments and newspapers to back down and apologise (for doing nothing ilegal or "wrong"). The outrage among Europeans was aimed at the violent reactions in many Muslim countries that managed to influence European nations' internal politics even. "The freedom of speech" argument in that case was that the muslims must respect the laws existing in Denmark and other European nations. In France the difference now is that the new law is passed without pressure from outside (or even despite") by the representatives of the people - implying the agreement of a large part of the population to this. So this is a "wanted" restriction of the freedom of speech as opposed to something that gets forced upon your from the outside.

Well that intelligence comment is a bit provoking, isn't it? Anyway I studied human rights and such "naive crap" as a auxillary subject and yes I support it all But there are a few problems. In reality there are limits everywhere to your "rights". Especially the freedom of speech is often restricted in certain areas. For example you are free to hate people of different race and you are not free to tell publicly for example "I hate those dirty Swiss people! They should all be shot!" If you do a Swiss person can sue you based on racism. There are such restrictions everywhere. It is a myth that freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want. It only means you are free to express whatever you want as long as you don't break other laws by it. There is a big difference in this between the english oriented regions and continental europe though. In the english parts freedom of speech is much less restricted than in continental europe. As I stated before I do not support laws like the one we discuss about now but one has to see that it is nothing special, especially in Europe. Many European nations have laws restricting what you can say to others. There is one key aspect that makes these things not so terrible as they might appear. That aspect is that it is a law. Laws are not orders. Laws provide legal basis for certain things. And it still depends on the interpretation of Judges if and how a person will get punished for breaking that law. As I stated before. We have a similar law in Switzerland that is aimed against people propagating racist things. In the connection with this law we have 2 turkish nationals on court atm because they were holding speeches stating the armenian issue wasn't a genocide. But it's no as outragous as it might appear. Firstly those people are not convicted yet. And secoundly the court only started on the initiative or Armenian people feeling they have been attacked and insulted by those speeches. So you see. The law is not a for the state in first place to tell the people what to think. The law simply gives people a legal basis to act against other people that incite against them. Also the fact that this is a law provides the opportunity to abandon it again by a new law or to fight it by appealing to a constitutional court. So if you feel your constitutional rights are in danger by this there is plenty of action you can take (vote the right representatives or go to court about it). Other things we should keep in mind is that: 1. The sources of those news are very vague about the exact implications of this law. I cannot tell if breaking that law would constitute an "official delict" as it is called in german (meaning that the state would have to act upon knowledge of the crime) or if there will only be action taken if private people accuse others of breaking the law. Or if there is a distinction based on how "extreme" the action was. 2. There are a number of very similar laws already in place in France and there is no major opposition against them wich implicates that the people more or less agree with such laws in special cases. The most prominent of these laws is probably that you can get punished for denying the Holocaust. Other examples are that in many monarchies you can get punished for insulting the King/Queen or that while in armed service you can even get punished for giving interviews to the press without permission. 3. Since a law it a rather inaccurate thing the practical implication will be given when there will be the first court decissions based on that law. As we know from similar laws that means that those laws ususally only take much effect in cases were people go over the top. That means when they start inciting others to act against certain people. In less grave cases there is either a small fine or a proposition to find a solution outside of the court. But this also depends on the category of this law as stated in the first point. At the end I still think those laws are stupid and should not be imposed. But those things are very common and there probably exist much more restriction of your "freedoms" that you are aware of. So I am not very shocked about this. As long as it has a legal basis the constitutional state remains intact and citizens aswell as lawmakers can take actions against those laws.

Well it's kinda funny that people seem to be so "afraid" of it because the trigonometric funtions are very easy actually. I know it's a pain to learn them and keep them in your head but once you got the basics memorised it's really nothing special. And it's incredibly powerful. I'd say the effort is well worth it considering what you can do with it then

Well for unit placements and angles and such would be covered by Geometry/Trigonometry. Now I dunno what education you have but the needed basics for this are taught in High School here. More advanced concepts might not be covered but it depends on your level and special courses. However. To start with you should check back in your old schoolbooks if you still have them. They ususally explain the things very well and also provide enough exercises. Once you have the basics in your head you can solve virtually any placements issue with some imagination and knowledge of the "trigonometric toolbox" you have at your disposal. Some solutions might be quite complicated though if you don't know advanced concepts. Personally I don't know any online "tutorial" on this but there's a good chance something like that would exist. Another source might be Wikipedia but IMHO I find their "explenations" are not very well suited to learn stuff. It's good to remember stuff you once knew though. Another good source is always a good library, especially university libraries. They should have many books aimed at education in all kind of topics. For Velocity stuff you want to check the topic of Vectors in Physics and Math.

Well there's no need to overreact. This law is stupid I agree (we have a very similar thing in Switzerland too) and not exactly in the spirit of freedom of speech but it's not like it's generaly restricting freedom of speech. It's just restricting you from propagating one (false) opinion. In practice I bet nobody is going to do anything against people saying they don't think it's a genocide in a discussion or something like that. The law is aimed against people trying to actively convince a lot of people that it is not a genocide. Kinda like with people denying the holocaust who can get punished in some democratic countries. I'd still rather not have such laws but knowing there's a lot of retards around that propagate such crap I don't really mind if they get fined for it. So in the end I don't really care. It's a stupid law and I'd like to see it not pass but when it does I don't think one should overreact and say freedom of speech as a whole is in danger. After all it still needs a specific law passed by the parliament (wich the citizens can elect) to restrict your freedom of speech and then it is restricting you on a legal basis wich means it can just aswell be abolished again by the parliament if a sufficent majority wants it. Btw I think if you're against such laws you should aswell abolish punishment for burning a country's flag or destroying money with the symbol of the head of state on it. But such laws exist in many democratic countries and only few people feel themself heavily restricted by that

I recall that was considered in 1994 (North Korea said they would think that as an act of war back then) but they didnt after Carter brokered that infamous deal. Well North Korea is pretty much under all kinds of sanctions my most of the world. They did however trade with china pretty much for some things like fuel and steel. It remains to be seen how china reacts to this test. Anyway. Food sanctions got lightened because the only effect they had was that a lot of north koreans starved without destabilising the regime at all. But other than that they don't get much things from other nations than china.

bah this sucks monkey balls. I know Athlon XP is not the hottest thing on the market anymore but there's still a lot of people using them. Bah. Another game down the toilet.