Isn't every politician hounded by his political enemies? :confused:

I thought that was politics. :)

I think you are right Rabbit. I always thought that the President was the head executive charged with carrying out the directives and laws made by the congress. It seems our executive decides what he wants to do and how he’ll do it and then sends it to congress to make it permanent law. Any international laws mad in Geneva or any place else can just be ignored and substituted to suite the purpose of the one view. (or the view of the one purpose)

It will make the job easier because we can do away with any standards or ideals of how citizens and all other people need to be treated. Procedures can decided first, then made into law. I see how this is going to make things run much smoother and faster. I don’t know how I was so confused.

Thanks for straightening me out on this.

Have you been reading the GW Bush primer for how to run the government?


And is it written in crayon like I guessed? :D

And have you noticed the latest trend?

A Western Australian man who has never been to the USA has had an extradition warrant sworn

against him for an alleged copyright matter.

When the arrogance of the heirarchy reaches the levels where no other law matters, it is small

wonder that evil men can talk kids into becoming human torpedoes against "the great satan".

Talk about carefully preparing the soil for a crop.

Throughout history this has been the predecessor of RADICAL change. :(

OF, if a man can't be extradited for an alleged copyright matter,then a man can't be extradited for running a child pornography site from Russia.

I know ,they are 180 degrees apart,but they fall under the same extradition laws.I would not want to determine where to draw the line between these two.It is very fuzzy and apparently broadly interpreted in our courts.
It is not as distinct as the 38th parallel and probably never will be.

As most lawyers are wont to do, they use the "laws on the books" to the best of their ability.That's why they should "kill all the lawyers" ;)

If these are international matters, shouldn't an international authority decide them?

Is there one???

This one has scared/saddened/outraged a few people today:

Bush Declares War On Freedom Of The Press

'Using many of the questionable surveillance and monitoring techniques that brought both questions and criticism to his administration, President George W. Bush has launched a war against reporters who write stories unfavorable to his actions and is planning to prosecute journalists to make examples of them in his "war on terrorism."

'Bush recently directed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to use "whatever means at your disposal" to wiretap, follow, harass and investigate journalists who have published stories about the administration's illegal use of warrantless wiretaps, use of faulty intelligence and anything else he deems "detrimental to the war on terror."

More at: http://www.disinfo.com/site/displayarticle15406.html

Canada's far from perfect on that front, too. The police have seized notes from reporters who have reported heavily on the Hell's Angels.

The point I was making was that a country's law should have no sway beyond their borders. It says that their law is stronger or more valid than the law of the other land.

Child porn is an excellent example of this, as this is something abhorrent to us and easy to bend moral outrage into legal superiority.

I asked in another thread about a boy and a 17 year old girl having sex. If the girl was American, the boy a Brit, the sex consentual, all on an Australian beach, under this mindset the boy is liable to be charged with statuatory rape.

This is called extra-territoriality. Israel is good at pulling it too.

From what I can see, it's whoever has the biggest gun and pulls the triger first. :(

I have to disagree here, it's whoever sacrifices the most lives for freedom.

I didn't mean to paraphrase . . . that quote made me think of posts about freedom of the press. Extradition is another ball of wax & has been a sore point of contention here, too.

Pax Americana?

The notion of “international law” is very limited. What may appear as an international law is often the concurrent application of the national laws of those sovereign nations which have ratified the same treaty. Here in the States, the Senate ratifies treaties.

Take, for example, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. If the copyrighted material was published in the U.S. then, as both Australia and the U.S. are signatories, an arrest warrant may be issued for an Australian accused of violating an American’s copyright. (Article 5, Rights Guaranteed:1. and 2. Outside the country of origin; 3. In the country of origin; 4. “Country of origin”)

Whether the accused had never traveled outside Australia would not matter.