From: Phil Carmody on
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


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


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


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


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