"Americans not getting bang for buck in Europe"

Following up to Anonymouse

The Queen can't pass laws on her own, without them being agreed to by
Parliament (assuming she'd ever want to....).

nor can the president.

Parliament can't pass laws without the seal of the Queen.

congress can pass laws without the signature of the president.

Ok, so you're not a troll, just a bit daft. List the things the
Queen can do in running the country.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Walking, Wasdale, Thames path, London etc "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Spain, food and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

"Hatunen" wrote
| Anonymouse wrote:
| nato, un, and other minor police actions are not war.
| So Vietnam and Korea weren't wars?

Hm, "minor police action on terror" doesn't quite have the same hyperbole to
it, does it?

Owain

Hatunen wrote:

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 05:36:39 GMT, Anonymouse
wrote:


Do you have any arguments about what "a well-regulated militia" means?

the citizenry well practiced and bearing arms.

It's the "well-regulated" part that needs clarication. One could
argue it means the government can make you keep the guns locked
up until the militia is called out.

Good point, not made often enough.

There seems, however, to be some sentiment in America that government
itself is the enemy, and that the purpose of bearing arms is to enable
one to oppose the government. There may be a rough correspondence
between the desire to have guns and holding the idea that government
is a bad thing.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

The 'militia' was easily identified; all "men" between certain ages;
today we include 'women' in the description of a citizen. Was not that
'adaptation' overdue and acceptable? Who BTW is the only generally
regarded 'heroic US figure' to come out of the Iraq conflict so far; a
woman from the standing 'militia'...

Tim K

"The Reid" wrote in message
...
Following up to Tim Kroesen

What it meant at the time it was written was clear; '*all* able
bodied
men'... Today meaning *all* citizens...

really? Funny how these out date ideas can be adapted to suit.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Walking, Wasdale, Thames path, London etc "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk"
-- you can email us@ this site
Spain, food and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@
all, it's a spamtrap

That's exactly what the revolutionary founding fathers intended when
they mentioned firearms 'rights' "to keep and bear arms" in the
constitution... Future revolution if needed... A disarmed cowering
citizenry afraid of their government was NEVER their future intention
for this country to be sure.

Tim K

"Padraig Breathnach" wrote in message
...
Hatunen wrote:

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 05:36:39 GMT, Anonymouse
wrote:


Do you have any arguments about what "a well-regulated militia"
means?

the citizenry well practiced and bearing arms.

It's the "well-regulated" part that needs clarication. One could
argue it means the government can make you keep the guns locked
up until the militia is called out.

Good point, not made often enough.

There seems, however, to be some sentiment in America that government
itself is the enemy, and that the purpose of bearing arms is to enable
one to oppose the government. There may be a rough correspondence
between the desire to have guns and holding the idea that government
is a bad thing.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

"Tim Kroesen" wrote:

"Padraig Breathnach" wrote in message
.. .
Hatunen wrote:

There seems, however, to be some sentiment in America that government
itself is the enemy, and that the purpose of bearing arms is to enable
one to oppose the government. There may be a rough correspondence
between the desire to have guns and holding the idea that government
is a bad thing.

That's exactly what the revolutionary founding fathers intended when
they mentioned firearms 'rights' "to keep and bear arms" in the
constitution... Future revolution if needed... A disarmed cowering
citizenry afraid of their government was NEVER their future intention
for this country to be sure.

See? I was right.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

Hatunen wrote:

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 13:45:07 +0100, Padraig Breathnach
wrote:

Are those held in Guantanamo Bay classed as illegal immigrants? I am
fairly sure that they do not have visas.

Getting back to another post I made, the USA does not have
sovereignty over the Guantanamo Bay naval base; under the
treaties Cuba retains sovereignty. This is what makes the Gitmo
situation more complicated. In fact, Gitmo is a leasehold from
Cuba, and the US dutifully pays its rental each year and Castro
dutifully refuses to cash the checks.

In the words of the treaty (which really just add fuel tot he
fire):

"While on the one hand the United states recognizes the
continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba
over the above described areas of land and water, on the other
hand the Republic of Cuba consents that during the period of the
occupation by the United states of said areas under the terms of
this agreement the United states shall exercise complete
jurisdiction and control over and within said areas with the
right to acquire (under conditions to be hereafter agreed upon by
the two Governments) for the public purposes of the United States
any land or other property therein by purchase or by exercise of
eminent domain with full compensation to the owners thereof."

The US courts have ruled that Guantanamo Bay does not fall within
their jurisdiction. See
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/comment...7_chander.html for
an article by someone who doesn't like that idea one little bit.

So under the terms of a treaty the United States exercises complete
jurisdiction, yet the US courts rule that Guantanamo Bay does not fall
within their jurisdiction. It's a place outside all law.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 20:22:16 +0100, Padraig Breathnach
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 13:45:07 +0100, Padraig Breathnach
wrote:

Are those held in Guantanamo Bay classed as illegal immigrants? I am
fairly sure that they do not have visas.

Getting back to another post I made, the USA does not have
sovereignty over the Guantanamo Bay naval base; under the
treaties Cuba retains sovereignty. This is what makes the Gitmo
situation more complicated. In fact, Gitmo is a leasehold from
Cuba, and the US dutifully pays its rental each year and Castro
dutifully refuses to cash the checks.

In the words of the treaty (which really just add fuel tot he
fire):

"While on the one hand the United states recognizes the
continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba
over the above described areas of land and water, on the other
hand the Republic of Cuba consents that during the period of the
occupation by the United states of said areas under the terms of
this agreement the United states shall exercise complete
jurisdiction and control over and within said areas with the
right to acquire (under conditions to be hereafter agreed upon by
the two Governments) for the public purposes of the United States
any land or other property therein by purchase or by exercise of
eminent domain with full compensation to the owners thereof."

The US courts have ruled that Guantanamo Bay does not fall within
their jurisdiction. See
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/comment...7_chander.html for
an article by someone who doesn't like that idea one little bit.

So under the terms of a treaty the United States exercises complete
jurisdiction,

That depends on just what you mean by jurisdiction.

yet the US courts rule that Guantanamo Bay does not fall
within their jurisdiction. It's a place outside all law.

For what it's worth, I believe the Uniform Code of Military
Justice applies.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen wrote:

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 20:22:16 +0100, Padraig Breathnach
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 13:45:07 +0100, Padraig Breathnach
wrote:

Are those held in Guantanamo Bay classed as illegal immigrants? I am
fairly sure that they do not have visas.

Getting back to another post I made, the USA does not have
sovereignty over the Guantanamo Bay naval base; under the
treaties Cuba retains sovereignty. This is what makes the Gitmo
situation more complicated. In fact, Gitmo is a leasehold from
Cuba, and the US dutifully pays its rental each year and Castro
dutifully refuses to cash the checks.

In the words of the treaty (which really just add fuel tot he
fire):

"While on the one hand the United states recognizes the
continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba
over the above described areas of land and water, on the other
hand the Republic of Cuba consents that during the period of the
occupation by the United states of said areas under the terms of
this agreement the United states shall exercise complete
jurisdiction and control over and within said areas with the
right to acquire (under conditions to be hereafter agreed upon by
the two Governments) for the public purposes of the United States
any land or other property therein by purchase or by exercise of
eminent domain with full compensation to the owners thereof."

The US courts have ruled that Guantanamo Bay does not fall within
their jurisdiction. See
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/comment...7_chander.html for
an article by someone who doesn't like that idea one little bit.

So under the terms of a treaty the United States exercises complete
jurisdiction,

That depends on just what you mean by jurisdiction.

Yes and no. The US seems to have concluded a treaty under which it
comes to exercise jurisdiction. So I infer "US jurisdiction". I don't
see a need to go further than that in defining it.

Yet the US courts seem to have refused jurisdiction. It seems to me
that at some level in the US judicial system there should be a court
which accepts jurisdiction. Probably not a local court in Illinois,
but somewhere in the system, if necessary the SCotUS. Otherwise you
have the situation of jurisdiction without people having any recourse
to law. Of course, that is how Guantanamo Bay is seen by many people.
Perhaps correctly. Those who see it that way may include key members
of the US Executive.

yet the US courts rule that Guantanamo Bay does not fall
within their jurisdiction. It's a place outside all law.

For what it's worth, I believe the Uniform Code of Military
Justice applies.

For what it's worth.

Right about what? That Americans know what out constitution is really
about and in what spirit our Country was founded? Of course we do.
Even GWB plainly knows what side his toast is buttered on regarding this
issue...

Tim K

"Padraig Breathnach" wrote in message
...
"Tim Kroesen" wrote:

"Padraig Breathnach" wrote in message
.. .
Hatunen wrote:

There seems, however, to be some sentiment in America that
government
itself is the enemy, and that the purpose of bearing arms is to
enable
one to oppose the government. There may be a rough correspondence
between the desire to have guns and holding the idea that
government
is a bad thing.

That's exactly what the revolutionary founding fathers intended when
they mentioned firearms 'rights' "to keep and bear arms" in the
constitution... Future revolution if needed... A disarmed cowering
citizenry afraid of their government was NEVER their future intention
for this country to be sure.

See? I was right.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED