 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Attention: The US Government |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Arwon Bazu                  Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
See, that's basically where we differ here. To me that sounds like an inability to accept the sovereignty of other states and the limitations on one's own ability to act. Guess what? America isn't omnipotent and can't control the world. Nor should it. To return to my first post in this thread, where I said "Well it's not quite on the level of invading Latin American countries to depose regimes that threaten the United Fruit Company or sugar interests or something... but the difference is only in degree, not type. It smacks of the same conviction that "protecting our business interests" is more important than fussy considerations like sovereignty and self-determination." It's this attitude of results benefitting the US at any price, that I guess I don't share. Too many nasty echoes and too many bad implications. It's hard not to turn this into a raving anti-American rant because frankly, this exceptionalist attitude is one of the things that makes otherwise rational people feel insulted and ranty. It's frustrating, insulting and humiliating when a foreign power can make your own government bend over backwards to cater to its whims, the whims of a country that doesn't gives a rats arse what your country wants or thinks, and believes it has the right to try to run roughshod over your laws and politics if it feels displeasure towards them. Hence the Swedish backlash at US meddling. What else could the US do? It can make its displeasure felt through diplomatic channels. It can act unilaterally instead of getting the whole WTO apparatus involved. It can stop recognising Swedish copyright in the US. It can impose tarrifs on Swedish intellectual property related goods. It could do any number of things that it, acting as an autonomous state, is entitled to do with its own laws and taxes. Then it's just two countries in a respectful dispute. Using one's excessive influence over the WTO as a petty threat is not one of those respectful, internal things. (edited by Arwon on 07-17-06 03:09 AM) |
|||
witeasprinwow   Since: 12-29-05 Last post: 6405 days Last view: 6405 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Arwon I think you got it right the first time. I don't see wether you will host piracy or not a soverign right that any nation gets to choose. To me, everyone should have the basic concept of property, material or intellectual, across all countries, and you shouldn't be able to simply "choose" to not respect the property of other countries. Just like people pay for other material from other countries, people should have to pay for media-format goods from other countries. Originally posted by Arwon I mean, I can understand some backlash, but to me it is pretty clear that piracy is wrong. Maybe not a wrong on the scale of many other wrongs, past or present, but it is still a wrong, and needs righting. Originally posted by Arwon Well, first, the diplomatic channels have been tried. Plenty of letters have been fired off to TPB and the Swedish government. I'm sure they knew corporations in America were going to start pushing for action through the American government. I also don't think ignoring Swedish copyright will do as much to Sweden as the vice-versa. Your other options are certainly viable, and really what I was looking to hear this whole thread; An action other than a sanction that would still pressure TPB to come down. So, I will admit what the US is doing is excessive. Harsher than necessary, quite possibly. I still don't feel it is extremely wrong, however. I mean, I admit that two wrongs don't make a right, but I think that there are some good intentions that were taken overboard here. Not a malicious wrong, just an... error, of sorts. I'm going to admit that I don't know much about the WTO (If it isn't obvious already), so I'm no expert on how much relevance the organization has to copyright violations. I'm just trusting that you're being fair with that. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| Yeah it's wrong, but does that necessitate this sort of action? no. To use an example from my own region. Australia isn't happy with a lot of the governments of Pacific Island nations--they're corrupt, incompetent, have dumb laws and don't do what we want trade-wise. We have a great degree of power over them, we're the major trading partner for most of them. We could just take over at the drop of a hat or squeeze them pretty badly through other means. But despite our displeasure we recognise that to use the full gamut of olicy instruments against them would be wrong in the face of their national sovereignty. Because as a soveriegn country we can't and shouldn't do everything we might like to even to countries that are weaker than us.
... One of the aspects of the WTO regime is certain minimum standards of intellectual property law. Enforcing this is one of the US's big axes it grinds in the WTO. For example, in negotiations with Brazil, it pretty much said agriculture was off the table until countries made concessions on this. Whereas, basically, agriculture is far more important since the first world protectionism in agriculture is kind of, you know, killing people. The agreement is contentious for a couple of reasons. The most visible has been the shitfights over pharmaceuticals, slightly less so, the stipulation that biological organisms be subject to intellectual property protection. It also stipulates patents for every new piece of information technology and software and business method which a lot of people don't like. The sanctions mechanism is also utterly unprecedented in the field of intellectual property. Finally, it conforms pretty narrowly to the American view of IP, which is in some ways different to the IP laws of other countries. Sufficed to say, the WTO does indeed have involvement in intellectual property. Particularly, there is an objection to imposing inappropriate legal standards on underdeveloped countries. ... The reason I feel the wrong is quite great is that this is a direct reflection of US behaviour in other situations in inthernational trade. It's representative of a whole gamut of behaviours ranging from simple sleaze and excessive influence on other countries, to extremely bullying and harmful trade behaviour, to full-on military intervention over business interests. In isolation this doesn't look so bad but in this background it's got nasty connotations. (edited by Arwon on 07-17-06 07:11 PM) |
|||
|
||bass Administrator  Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| Actually, in many cases like this, the US government has no choice in the matter. Congress, in many cases, obligates the executive branch to enforce US law everywhere, even outside of the US. This is in accordance with the wording of several Supreme Court decisions that state that US law applies everywhere (even on, say, Mars) and that the executive branch is required to enforce the laws.
Another example of this type of legislation is a law passed a few years ago by congress that states that the government MUST use any means necissary (including military force) to prevent any American from being tried by the International Criminal Court. In short, the people who are causing this issue have no choice, failure to uphold the law is a crime itself and they could be charged with deriliction of duty, and since the Supreme Court holds that US law is universal, the goverment has no choice but to make certain that these lawbreakers are prosecuted. If they didn't, they would be breaking the law here. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| Wait.
The US has a law saying foreign nationals, in their own countries, can break US law? And that the US is compelled to punish other countries for not complying to its own laws and wishes? Fuck that. Seriously. |
|||
|
||bass Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| Yes. We do have a law that says exactally that. Take another example of the man from russia who broke the encryption on adobe e-book files. This act was done by a russian citazen while he was in russia at the time. What he did was also legal in russia.
He then took a vacation to the US where he was promptly arrested by the FBI and held in prison for several months until he reached an agreement with adobe. There is no choice in this matter, if the FBI did not arrest him, the refusing FBI agents would themselves be arrested and replaced with people more willing to follow the law. Laws exist to be obeyed and upheled, not ignored. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| That's different though. These are Swedes in Sweden who haven't, evidentally, broken their own laws. If they went to the US then it'd be fair enough that they could be arrested, there's plenty of examples of extraterritorial jurisdiction for stuff like child prostitution and hate speech (David Irving).
The difference, though, is that this isn't the US enforcing its own laws on individuals it gets its hands on, it's punishing an entire country for having different laws. Totally different. This'd be like the US threatening Russia with WTO sanctions or other such things, if it didn't extradite that guy. If you can find me a law that says the US is compelled to invoke the WTO over trade law disputes, then the debate becomes "US law is fucked" rather than "the US is a sleazy bully using unfair and assymetrical tactics to get its way". (edited by Arwon on 07-19-06 03:05 AM) |
|||
|
||bass Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ArwonIt's never that specific. Most of the laws just use phrases like 'all reasonable means' and things like that. |
|||
|
||bass Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| I should also point out that alot of these desicions are made by the Supreme Court and not lawmakers. Remember, the judges of the Supreme Court are appointed, not elected and, once in office, CANNOT be removed. Thus they tend to act without fear of retribution since there is basically nothing you can do about them unless one of them is clearly and obviously insane or unable to perform their duties. | |||
|
Xkeeper Took the board down in a blaze of glory, only to reveal how truly moronical ||bass is. Since: 11-17-05 From: Henderson, Nevada Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ||bass I'm at a loss for words. |
|||
|
witeasprinwow Since: 12-29-05 Last post: 6405 days Last view: 6405 days |
| ||
Originally posted by XkeeperOriginally posted by ||bass I think it should be mentioned that Congress can over-rule the Supreme Court in this area by getting a 66% (2/3rds) majority in both houses, allowing them to pass a Constitutional amendment, which is something the Courts cannot challenge. And it's the President that appoints the Supreme Court members, so it's not just like we got some bums off the street and called them the Supreme Court. Also, the President can pardon people who break these kinds of laws. Of course, if neither group exercises their checks and balances, then yes, the Supreme Court is pretty much in control. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| You can always shoot the judges. That'll get rid of them. | |||
|
witeasprinwow Since: 12-29-05 Last post: 6405 days Last view: 6405 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Arwon Arwon, how are you not advising policy to some politician? |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| Fear?
I just wanted to point out that political violence is an effective circuit-breaker. not advocating it, mind you, just pointing out that it shakes things up. |
|||
|
||bass Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
Originally posted by witeasprinwowWhile this is true, remember how difficult it is to pass an amendment. Not only do both houses on congress have to approve, the PEOPLE have to approve it as well. The same people who can vote for anything they want and suffer no consequences because the vote is secret. |
|||
Tommathy Since: 11-17-05 From: Cloud Nine, Turn Left and I'm There~ Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| Well now, the universal jurisdiction of US Law wasn't something of which I was aware. It's horrifying and fascinating all at once.
Not that I don't believe you, ||bass, but this actually looks like something I should read up on. Do you know any sources on the subject which I could read? |
|||
|
||bass Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| Unfortunately, I don't have access to the complete (read: private) WestLaw databases. It costs money and it's simply not worth the investment for at least another 2 to 4 years depending on when I start law school. With that in mind, try using the wiki article on Universal Jurisdiction as a starting point. | |||
beneficii Broom Hatter Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6299 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ||bassOriginally posted by witeasprinwowWhile this is true, remember how difficult it is to pass an amendment. Not only do both houses on congress have to approve, the PEOPLE have to approve it as well. The same people who can vote for anything they want and suffer no consequences because the vote is secret. I thought it was after 2/3 of each house of Congress passed it, it goes to either the state legislatures or conventions appointed by each of the state legislatures and 3/4 of either of them must approve it. Also, there is another way for a constitutional amendment to be proposed to the states: A constitutional convention. If 2/3 of the state legislatures pass resolutions calling for a constitutional convention, then according to Article 5 of US Constitution, one must be called. The constitutional convention itself would have the power to propose amendments to the states and even theoretically have the power to propose a new constitution. |
|||
|
||bass Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
Originally posted by beneficiiThe first part is right, I meant to say 2/3 of the states. This is what happens when I make posts after midnight, I say stupid things without paying attention. Even still. I can guarintee you that the legislatures of states like Texas would strongly vote AGAINST any amendment that said US law was not absoloute and supreme everywhere in the universe. It would be enough voted to make proposing the amendment pointless. Remember, it's 2/3 to PROPOSE an amendment, 3/4 to actually approve it. Trust me when I say there enough states (you only need 13 to kill an amendment) that beive the US is supreme and everything else is mud to make such an attempt pointless. As to the second part with the state legislatures calling a convention. While this is legal under the constitution, in over 200 years, it has happened only once ever. In this case, for the 21st amendment which served only to repeal the 18th amendment and thus ending prohibition. |
|||
|
beneficii Broom Hatter Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6299 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| |bass,
It looks like there is a term confusion. There are 2 kinds of conventions that are possible in the process of amending the constitution. One kind of convention is the state conventions to ratify an amendment, which you mentioned. When an amendment is proposed, whoever proposed it can specify whether the legislatures of the states or conventions appointed by the state legislatures will ratify; in either case, a 3/4 majority is required to ratify. The convention I was talking about in my post is a different sort of convention that is called when the states desire to circumvent Congress in amending the Constitution. Here is the text of Article 5: Originally posted by Article 5 of the US Constitution That kind of convention is what I was talking about, which would be a national convention or a Constitutional Convention. The last time such a convention was held in this country was 1787. Theoretically, it would have the power to propose any amendments it wanted and even to propose a brand spanking new Constitution. That has never been exercised under this Constitution, but states have passed resolutions in the past calling for a national convention on specific issues. In fact, I believe that all but a few states have past such resolutions; the only reason a convention hasn't been called is that enough states haven't passed resolutions on a specific issue, which seems to be the current rationale for not calling one. But the legality of that is unclear, as the courts haven't decided on the matter. Some people say that if enough states do pass a resolution on a specific issue, then the convention could only deal with that issue and not any other, while others say that theoretically (and practically) they would be unrestrained from proposing any constitutional amendment or even a new constitution. The format of such a convention would probably be that enough states pass resolutions on a single issue (or someone files a successful lawsuit stating that enough states have passed resolutions for a national convention period), then Congress would set the time and place of the convention (and would probably also set the mode of ratification: legislatures or conventions--if you read the italics, you can see why), then the states would send delegates to the convention, and they would gives speeches and debates, then they would vote on proposals, and any proposals that passed the convention would be proposed to the states, and if 3/4 of the relevant states' bodies approved, then that proposal would become the supreme law of the land. Many say that a constitutional convention would be dangerous, and they have a point: It would be a very tense time when such a thing would be called. But I would imagine the federal government being seen as interfering with it or trying to stop it would be even more dangerous if there were a huge movement toward it. EDIT: Emphasis made plural to emphases now that italics was added. EDIT 2: BTW, regarding the lawsuit thing I brought up, here is an apparent court brief by a guy named Bill Walker (which is a massive 900-page PDF file btw), suing the US for not calling a constitutional convention when enough states passed resolutions supporting it: WARNING - MASSIVE FILE EDIT 3: A counterpoint. (edited by beneficii on 07-21-06 02:39 AM) (edited by beneficii on 07-21-06 03:16 AM) (edited by beneficii on 07-21-06 03:27 AM) |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Attention: The US Government |
| |
