I'm sorry about your grandfather.

Thank you. He wasn't a jew, but a resistence hero. Since I beleive it's a moral crime to forget those who died for us and the peace, I'll just take a minute to say who he was:

Halfdan Marius Jønsson, b. Petersen (in Levanger, Nord-Trøndelag, Norway), 5/15/1891 - 2/7/1945. Norwegian laber union man, co-founder of Norsk Kjemisk Industriarbeiderforbund, the Norwegian Chemical Labor Union, and its first leader. Leader of Faglig Utvalg, the national Union's resistence coordination during WWII. Member of the National Coordination Comittey from 1942-1944 (when he was arrested by Gestapo). Member of "Kretsen", the secret and illegal government of 12, which got their orders directly from our exiled government in London during WWII.

He was arrested January 7 1944, brought for questioning to Møllergt. 19 in Oslo, tortured for months until transferred to a local consentration camp outside Oslo; Grini. In August 1944 he was shipped together with other Nacht-und-Nebel (NN) prisoners to the continent (probably France). He was in Natzweiler, France, and walked from there to Dachau, germany, where he finally died at age 54 by Spot Typhoid an early February morning, just a month or so before the americans liberated the camp and freed the starved prisoners.

Thank you, bestefar, for what you did for us all.

Thank you, America, for trying to free him and for liberating Europe.

And thank you for sharing that very important story. I will remember it.

Maybe you could tell this story to the Iranian President.

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

From the first link.

the Charter of the Nuremberg tribunal outlines those crimes aimed at the planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties."

You must have missed that point after your 'highlight'.

By denying you're bound to law, you admit the law exists.... while you may wish to sit outside of that law, those who administer that law are free to prosecute you for breaking that law.

Simple deal there, .......just try to tell the judge that those laws do not apply to you anymore because you've chosen to reject them.....

If we truly are a country who recognizes the rule of law, we can no more pretend we are above that law, than we can pretend that law doesn't exist.....

.....treaties in and of themselves mean absolutely nothing when those that sign them aren't interested in adhering to them any longer.

Demonstrating my point quite well, .....choosing to adhere to a set of laws and then not adhering to them anymore is breaking that law.

"There were three reasons given for the Bush Doctrine of Pre-emptive War;

Not four or five or innumeral reasons.... just three.

Two reasons were unfounded, and the third, a non-reason, so to speak.

1) Saddam had weapons of mass destruction with which he threatened his neighbors and the U.S.,

2)

......not true, it's been proven he hadn't the weapons he was accused of having, nor was he able to deliver them had they existed........

2) Saddam supported and was connected to al-Qaeda

.....very simply not true, .....even Bush has given up on trying to support that fraud anymore.....

and 3) he was a ruthless tyrant.

....a non-starter, in terms of any type of legal justification for an act of aggression.

So yes, I think it demonstrates pretext very well.

That there are those who refuse to aknowledge that pretext, they have to create another way to describe that particular elephant in the room. In your case:

You claim a 'moral' right for Bush to pick and choose which ruthless tyrants to invade and occupy their countries?

No wonder you can't accept that a war of aggression is illegal........ you think you have the ability to grant GW Bush a unilateral 'right' to rule, .......a right to rule outside of any law, treaties or agreements the United States may have entered into.....

You've crowned him king..... you've placed him as a God incarnate, with the 'moral' right to rule.

Thanks for clearing that up....... it helps to put context to some of the other strange postulations you espouse here from time to time....

---

......you just post your crude remarks aimed at me.

Preach to someone you actually can sit in judgement of.....

Trying to cast shame on me or anyone else from your self appointed exalted position is quite often the funniest thing I see posted on these boards......

.......think of it this way, tom..... I don't hold you in awe.... or reverance.

You appear to me to be befuddled, bitter, and frustrated that the world is not turning out to fit your definition of how it should be....

Telling others how they should act or think is all you seem to have left....

Sputter and fume all you want...... know that it's merely amusing to some others.
.
.

---

Paul, this post is just for you!

---

Account frozen...

This is a waste of time. A few last comments and you can have the last word if you wish.

You must have missed that point after your 'highlight'.

By denying you're bound to law, you admit the law exists.... while you may wish to sit outside of that law, those who administer that law are free to prosecute you for breaking that law.

Simple deal there, .......just try to tell the judge that those laws do not apply to you anymore because you've chosen to reject them.....

If we truly are a country who recognizes the rule of law, we can no more pretend we are above that law, than we can pretend that law doesn't exist.....

No, Paul. When I deny that the U.S. is bound to x law, I am not admitting that x law exists. I admit that it once existed. Take for example, the ABM Treaty. That treaty gained the force of law through the agreement of two sovereign nations. It only remains law as long as those same sovereigns continue to agree. Once they do not, and one nation ends the treaty, the law the treaty created ceases to exist. The treaty no longer has the power of law because if it did, the sovereignty of the nation that chooses to end the agreement would be violated in favor of the nation that did not. Needless to say, no country accepts this.

So, in the ABM case, there is no judge to tell that the law does not apply, A) that body of law has ceased to exist, and B) no one else has the legal right to enforce the ABM treaty between two sovereign nations.

The U.S., like most countries, generally recognizes the rule of law, but, like nearly all of them, does not subvert its sovereignty to the whims of other sovereign nations in perpetuity.

That there are those who refuse to aknowledge that pretext, they have to create another way to describe that particular elephant in the room. In your case:

You claim a 'moral' right for Bush to pick and choose which ruthless tyrants to invade and occupy their countries?

Anyone has the moral right to use force to end the aggression of others. You have to moral right to use force to stop a mugger. You have the moral right to use force to stop a rapist that has entered your daughter's room at night. The U.S. had the moral right to enter WWII. Any country had the moral right to stop the genocide against the Tutsis in Rwanda. Any country has the moral right to stop the slaughter today in Sudan. Not a moral obligation or duty, but a right.

No wonder you can't accept that a war of aggression is illegal........ you think you have the ability to grant GW Bush a unilateral 'right' to rule, .......a right to rule outside of any law, treaties or agreements the United States may have entered into.....

No. Wrong again, Paul. I can accept that a war of aggression is illegal. You, however, are unable to make a legal case. You (and others that think like you) do not make any arguments whatsoever, other than repeating that mantra.

Neither have I granted Dubya (or any ruler) a right to rule outside of law. What I have said, specifically, is that the power that gives any sovereign the right to enter those treaties or agreements is the same power that gives any sovereign the right to end those treaties and agreements. When they end, they cease to have the power of law.

You've crowned him king..... you've placed him as a God incarnate, with the 'moral' right to rule.

Thanks for clearing that up....... it helps to put context to some of the other strange postulations you espouse here from time to time....

Do you even read what I said? I did not give Dubya a moral right to rule, nor crowned him king. That's just silly. Given my druthers, I would dismantle 95+% of the federal, state, and local gov'ts, and Dubya would be the first to go.

'Nuff said.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

High point of your day. dog?

---

This is a waste of time.

Can't deny that might be a possibility... though who it may be a waste of time for is still the question,

........since your ABM treaty 'example' is descriptive of a treaty existing only between two countries.... it fails to address much of the problem with denial of being bound by other various charters and treaties.

Nuremberg, Geneva, and the ICC are not examples of simple two party treaties....

....claiming a defense of not agreeing to the law, or not being a party to the agreements in the case of the Nuremberg trials would not have 'saved' those prosecuted under those war crime cases.....

The UN Charter does not cease to exist just because someone breaks it or claims to withdraw.....

You speak of sovereignty of nations, ...the concept of sovereignty is only 'allowed' through mutual agreement of charters and treaties.... ...else it could only be enforced through might and diplomacy would cease to exist.

Upholding, or not upholding the sovereign nature of a country is a defining term embodied in the various charters and treaties of the world.

Unlike the ABM treaty, in any other treaty that involves more than a small handful of nations, such as the UN charter and the ICC, if one nation denys being bound by that generally agreed upon law, there is still a remaining judging body who can act.

You can continue to 'claim' that I haven't made a case for the illegallity of Bush's invasion and occupation.... but you can only do that by denying that there is a body of nations that still exists to pass judgement.

Bush tacitly admitted as much when he sought specific further UN resolutions to condone his invasion and occupation, that he eventually acted without gaining that specific resolution of approval he sought, does not negate his acceptance that it was specified in the Charter. He merely chose to act outside of that body of laws.

You can claim that the US somehow sits above or outside of that body of nations, ...but I submit that it does not.... ....only by the 'rule' of power can the US hope to deny the existance of another ruling body of 'laws'....

That body of nations, which encompasses such a body of laws exists, ....it may lack the means to enforce it's will in ways which would impress you, but the body of law contained within those treaties and charters lives on even if you or Bush wish to deny them.



Individuals can claim they have a moral 'right' to act.....

But US Presidents have an obligation to act in the best interests of the nation within a framework of laws, and in concert with the checks and balances built into our system of laws....

The Supreme Court has ruled that the president, even in wartime, must abide by established U.S. laws..... Bush was 'reminded' of that fact in some recent Supreme Court decisions...

As you must be aware, questions have been raised about whether this president and his cohorts have strictly abided by all our own laws in their administration of this 'war'....

Whether US law has been broken will eventually be ruled upon, results of investigations, cases before the courts, and revelations revealed through declassification of 'secrets' will allow a full disclosure at some time...

In time, the courts, the congress and the people will pass judgement on the question of whether laws were broken and who may have broken them.... some may disagree with those judgements, but they will eventually be made....

With the revelations available at this time, my opinion has been formed. Laws have been broken, trust has been abridged.

Subsequent information may cause me to alter my opinion, but there's little chance of that happening before the various investigations and 'secrets' are known and ruled upon.

In the meantime, there is no question that the Bush doctrine of preventive war flies in the face of what's been embodied in charters and treaties which define the acts of a nation in it's military actions...

The Bush doctrine of preventive war is directly opposed to the definition of an act of aggression.... it's not viewed as an accepted form of self-defense.

It was judged in that manner as soon as it was proposed, and since the invasion and occupation of Iraq, there are still those who judge this 'war' as nothing less than an illegal act of aggression.

Until and unless, the definitions in international law are changed, or the body of nations which form the basis for that law ceases to exist, the invasion and occupation of Iraq is still an illegal act of aggression as defined in that international law....

So far, you're arguments have not swayed my opinion about the legality of this invasion and occupation..... so you're free to assume you are wasting your time....

......ultimately, the question is not strictly 'ours' to decide, except in our own judgements, I aknowledge your right to an opinion..... however malformed I think that might be.

---

no credible sources .......you provided no links ........you have to be ready to show credible sources.

The Congressional record is not credible?

You can choose to believe what you want..... plenty of people do. .........but it's not my responsibility to satisfy all your wishes....

......you asked for links, I provided them. It's your own perogative to look further...

I'll stand by my posts, the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act, with the Nethercutt Amendment are weilded against those countries who would dare to defy our administrations believe that we are 'outside' the rule of international laws and treaties.

You may wish it were not so, but if you want to refute that, take your own advice and show your own links which show I'm not representing the facts as they are.

Nice hack job Paul, you edited the quote to make yourself look like a victim, I never said anything that resembled what your edit looked like. I politely presented an arguement which you never one time aknowledged or even tried to anwser. In light of the realization that you are more interested in a smear campaign and are not capable of proper debate, I am finished, good day to you sir.

And for the record I'm am not particlularly fond of the current administration, but I am a skeptic and I demand the truth no matter what side is telling it.

---

Representative Heather A. Wilson of New Mexico, chairwoman of the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence has called for a full Congressional investigation into the warrantless NSA eavedropping program.

Wilson said in an interview that she had "serious concerns" about the surveillance program. By withholding information about its operations from many lawmakers, she said, the administration has deepened her apprehension about whom the agency is monitoring and why.

Ms. Wilson, who was a National Security Council aide in the administration of President Bush's father, is the first Republican on either the House's Intelligence Committee or the Senate's to call for a full Congressional investigation into the program.

-------------------------------

.....(more cracks in the majority solidarity ?)

---

Taliban offer 100kg gold for killing cartoonist

Daily Times,
Thursday, February 09, 2006

ISLAMABAD: A top Taliban commander on Wednesday offered a reward of 100 kilogrammes of gold to anyone who kills the artist responsible for cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), the Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) reported.

If someone killed the cartoonist responsible for the cartoons in Denmark, the “Taliban will give 100 kilogrammes of gold,” Mullah Dadullah said in a telephone call to AIP from an unknown location.

Dadullah also said that the Taliban would give five kilogrammes of gold to anyone who killed a Danish, Norwegian or German soldier, AIP said. AIP said that Dadullah was operating as chief commander of the Taliban waging an anti-government insurgency in Afghanistan. The agency quoted Dadullah as saying that the Taliban’s list of would-be suicide bombers had grown since the publication of the cartoons. afp

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

---

Account frozen...

If someone killed the cartoonist responsible for the cartoons in Denmark, the “Taliban will give 100 kilogrammes of gold,” Mullah Dadullah said in a telephone call to AIP from an unknown location.

100K of gold eh? something else the troops can look for. and more treasure coordinates for Pirates@home.

Rage over cartoons of prophet unabated

Plans found for Iran nuclear test tunnel

The Washington Post

February 8, 2006

WASHINGTON – Iranian engineers have completed sophisticated drawings of a deep subterranean shaft, according to officials who have examined classified documents in the hands of U.S. intelligence for more than 20 months.

Complete with remote-controlled sensors to measure pressure and heat, the plans for the 400-meter tunnel appear designed for an underground atomic test detonation that might one day announce Tehran's arrival as a nuclear power, the officials said.

By the estimates of U.S. and allied intelligence analysts, that day remains as much as a decade away – assuming that Iran applies the full measure of its scientific and industrial resources to the project and encounters no major technical hurdles. But whether Iran's leaders have reached that decision and what concrete progress the effort has made remain divisive questions among government analysts and U.N. inspectors.

......you just post your crude remarks aimed at me.

You appear to me to be befuddled, bitter, and frustrated that the world is not turning out to fit your definition of how it should be....

[snip additional insulting, ignorant blather]

Gee, Pauly-poo, I haven't seen anyone post here who can follow your (lack of) reasoning. Aren't you lonely enough up there in the Alaska Winter, sitting in your woolies, typing your delusions into your computer for all the world to . . . laugh at?

......you just post your crude remarks aimed at me.

You appear to me to be befuddled, bitter, and frustrated that the world is not turning out to fit your definition of how it should be....

[snip additional insulting, ignorant blather]

Gee, Pauly-poo, I haven't seen anyone post here who can follow your (lack of) reasoning. Aren't you lonely enough up there in the Alaska Winter, sitting in your woolies, typing your delusions into your computer for all the world to . . . laugh at?

Tom, you're wasting your breath on him. He's probably splattering postings all over the internet. Here at Seti, he doesn't even have a computer attached to the project, nor has he, in quite some time; and then only briefly. He has no interest in the project except to spue troll bile. At times I've even agreed with him, but the way he presents his message is a complete turn off. He's just as bad as the religious fanatics on another thread who hide behind an ancient text rather than having an open discussion. Needless to say, my own tact at times has room for improvement when having discourse with idiots. The only advice I can give is to filter him.

---

Account frozen...

Tom, you're wasting your breath on him. He's probably splattering postings all over the internet. Here at Seti, he doesn't even have a computer attached to the project, nor has he, in quite some time; and then only briefly. He has no interest in the project except to spue troll bile. At times I've even agreed with him, but the way he presents his message is a complete turn off. He's just as bad as the religious fanatics on another thread who hide behind an ancient text rather than having an open discussion. Needless to say, my own tact at times has room for improvement when having discourse with idiots. The only advice I can give is to filter him.

Maybe you're right. I haven't filered anyone since WW, but as it seems no one is listening to him (or can follow his ramblings--I'm not sure which), so I'll just cut him out.

As for the religious fanatics, there are too many of them in various threads and of various stripes for me to have any idea who you mean . . . unless you mean all of them. Didn't one of them call you a racist? It was easier when there was just one WW who we all agreed was a disruptive troll.

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

---

Account frozen...