From: Phil Carmody on 1 Feb 2007 09:01 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >Our 200+ year history provides systems with a complacency > >that works against us. The leadership within this enemy is > >very clever. The followers are primitives, the leaders > >aren't. > I started to understand that all that. I understood all that the > month after 9/11. Who do you think were the masterminds behind 9/11? Do you think it was your boogeyman Osama, and his elite Al Qaeda advisers, or do you think it was the footsolders -- the perpetrators? Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: Eeyore on 1 Feb 2007 09:05 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> So, physically tailing one person will only track his mess > >> making activities...maybe. Unless you can follow him directly > >> into the mosque where assignments are made and supplies handed > >> out > > > >So you're now claiming all mosques are trouble too ? > > You really need to stop generalizing. Me ? You're the one who does that ! Are you by any chance moving to the idea that it's just a small minority who are troublemakers ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 1 Feb 2007 09:08 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >> > > >> >Extradition treaties allow the arrest and deportation of criminals who > >> >have traveled to a different country. They exist because most countries > >> >don't want to be a safe haven for criminals. > >> > >> They have to exist because one country's law cannot apply to > >> another country's law. Criminal law is locally defined. > >> Extradition treaties define a few acts of commission that both countries > >> agree to call illegal. > > > >You are *completely* wrong. Extradition was never mean to be about the > >extra-territorial application of law although the USA now seems to think it > >can use it that way. > > > >Extradition has always traditionally been about the return of a suspected > >criminal to the country in which the crime was committed. > > Extradition treaties are the way two countries' laws get along. That's absolutely fine as long as the process is equally applicable to both countries. The current US/UK agreement does not give the UK equal rights as was originally agreed. As ever the USA is cheating. Graham
From: Eeyore on 1 Feb 2007 09:10 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >So what. If a German comes to the UK and drives at 80MPH on the motorway > >> >he has broken the law and the police can take action. > >> > >> Only in specified cases can police take action. At the moment > >> I'm thinking about diplomatic immunity. > > > >You want to arrest diplomats too now ? > > [frying pan]----->leap----->[fire] Would you care to eleaborate what you mean by that ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 1 Feb 2007 09:11
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> > >>>So what. If a German comes to the UK and drives at 80MPH on the motorway > >>>he > >>>has broken the law and the police can take action. > >> > >> Only in specified cases can police take action. At the moment > >> I'm thinking about diplomatic immunity. > >> > > > >It is interesting you say "only in specified cases." What do you think are > >the specified cases where the police *can* take action. Please list them > >all. > > Read the extradition treaties. I don't know if there is a word > for the list of exceptions when one is working in an embassy. Embassies are treated as 'sovereign territory' of the host country IIRC. Graham |