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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Ulrich who wrote (42170)	5/4/2004 5:38:06 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793916

IS KERRY'S TARDINESS REALLY THAT BIG A DEAL?: New Republic Blog Today's New York Times piece about Kerry's upcoming $25-million ad buy makes a very good point in passing: The new advertising push--its magnitude possible because Mr. Kerry opted out of the public finance system--is in large measure Mr. Kerry's response to a two-month $60 million barrage of advertisements from President Bush, who spent the day traveling southern Michigan by bus [emphasis added]. As the piece goes on to illustrate, a large number of Democrats believe Kerry is several weeks late on this ad blitz, and that, as a result, he may have allowed the Bushies to define him before he could define himself. But, as the italicized line reminds us, Kerry would be in much, much worse shape at this point had he not followed Howard Dean's lead and rejected federal matching funds. Alongside the potential disaster that doing that would have created, a couple weeks here or there hardly seems like a big deal. In fact, in the last few days, sniping Democrats have held up Al Gore as the "how not to" example on this particular issue, and have complained that Kerry is repeating Gore's mistakes. But, as the Times piece makes clear, one enormous difference between Kerry's position now and Gore's in 2000 is that Gore stayed within the public finance system, meaning he could only spend $9 million between the end of the primaries and the convention. It's that difference, not whether a candidate goes on the air in mid-April or early May, that would seem to matter for the outcome of the race.

To: Bill Ulrich who wrote (42170)	5/4/2004 7:25:37 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793916

There would be US jurisdiction over the murder if the person committing the murder was a US national and Iraq did not have jurisdiction over the prison at the time of the death. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 18 U.S.C. § 7 - Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined The term "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States", as used in this title, includes: (7) Any place outside the jurisdiction of any nation with respect to an offense by or against a national of the United States. U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. § 7(7) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For example, the US has jurisdiction over crimes committed by US nationals in Antarctica. Smith v. United States, 507 U.S. 197, 217 (1993). I have no idea whether an Iraqi court has jurisdiction in this matter, but if not, the person can be prosecuted in the US. Otherwise, I guess he'll enjoy his stay in Iraq. Also, if the person committing the murder tortured the victim first, there is US jurisdiction if the person committing the torture is a US national. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 18 U.S.C. § 2340A - Torture (a) Offense. - Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life. (b) Jurisdiction. - There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if - (1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or (2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender. U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. § 2340A ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 18 U.S.C. § 2340 - Definitions As used in this chapter - (1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and (3) "United States" includes all areas under the jurisdiction of the United States including any of the places described in sections 5 and 7 of this title and section 46501(2) of title 49. U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. § 2340