Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kumar who wrote (61688)	12/14/2002 11:31:59 AM
From: Sam Citron	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

India slams Pak for freeing Masood Azhar Agence France-Presse New Delhi, December 14 India on Saturday launched a blistering attack on Pakistan for releasing Masood Azhar, head of Jaish-e-Mohammad, accuses of launching murderous raids on its soil. "It is quite clear that investigation and charges against Maulana Masood Azhar have not been pursued by the Pakistani authorities with any seriousness," foreign ministry spokesman Navtej Sarna told a news conference. He was reacting to an announcement in Islamabad that Azhar, head of Jaish-e-Mohammad, a terrorist group active in Jammu and Kashmir, had been freed. Azhar was detained in December 2001 shortly after his movement was blamed by New Delhi for an attack on the Indian Parliament that sent tensions soaring between New Delhi. hindustantimes.com * * * Question for the thread: Does India have a legitimate right to (1) capture him in Pakistan and bring him to justice in India; (2) execute him for his terrorist activities inside India?

To: kumar who wrote (61688)	12/15/2002 2:23:04 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi kumar_rangan; Re: "Slowly but surely learning, that this does not apply, when signing a piece of paper with the US government." It's not just the US. A substantial part of the world does not allow any single person to bind the nation to an agreement. That's what "ratification" is all about. Other countries that require ratification to be bound by treaties: Russia, Australia, Japan, and Canada all require ratification: spacedaily.com I would guess that if we were experts in the history of those countries, we'd be able to find examples where they signed an agreement and then failed to ratify it. It all comes down to one thing, can one man bind an entire nation to a treaty. In most modern nations, the answer is no. (This is the way it should be, I think.) -- Carl