| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Dermot Donovan" |
| Date: |
29 Nov 2004 06:02:37 PM |
| Object: |
New Arms Race is What The World Really Needs! |
As Bush keeps busy braking all international laws and withdrawing from all
international treaties which stand it the way of his "messianic" goals, the
world is facing a new major race in the field of design and production of
Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Still looking for WMD's? Here they are:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/11/29/russia.missile.ap/index.html
Moscow tests new missile system
Monday, November 29, 2004 Posted: 8:19 AM EST (1319 GMT)
MOSCOW, Russia (AP) -- Russia on Monday successfully tested a modernized
anti-ballistic missile system, the military said, in what an analyst called
a sign that the country was trying to answer the United States' withdrawal
from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
The test-firing of the missile, which can intercept and destroy other
missiles, was aimed at certifying it for further use, said a Space Troops
spokesman who declined to give his name.
He said the missile's technical performance was flawless during the launch
that took place at 11 a.m. Moscow time (0800 GMT) at the Sary-Shagan testing
range in the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan.
The Interfax news agency said Monday that the missile was an A-135, which
the Russian military has been armed with since the early 1950s.
Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov reported to President Vladimir Putin about
the successful test, according to the Interfax news agency.
"The missile accurately hit the training target," the agency quoted Ivanov
as saying.
Ivanov told Putin that his ministry would "further perfect and modernize the
anti-ballistic missile system," Interfax reported.
Russia reacted calmly when Washington withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty in 2002 in order to develop a nationwide missile shield. But
Moscow has since complained about Washington's plans to build new low-yield
nuclear weapons.
Last month, Putin said Russia was developing a new nuclear missile system
unlike any weapon held by other nuclear powers.
In the past year, Russian defense officials have also made several
announcements about new weapons.
Alexander Pikayev, a senior analyst with Moscow's Institute for Global
Economy and International Relations, said Monday's test signaled that Russia
had stepped up work on its anti-missile defense system program in response
to the Unites State's unilateral withdrawal from the ABM treaty.
He said that over the past 10 years, Russia had tested its anti-ballistic
missiles "extremely rarely."
Earlier this year, Russia announced plans to test-fire a mobile version of
the new Topol-M missile before the year's end and commission it in 2005.
Topol-Ms have a range of about 6,000 miles (9,650 kilometers) and reportedly
can maneuver in ways that are difficult to detect. The missile has been
deployed in silos since 1998.
.
|
|
| User: "Steven Litvintchouk" |
|
| Title: Re: New Arms Race is What The World Really Needs! |
29 Nov 2004 06:20:21 PM |
|
|
Dermot Donovan wrote:
As Bush keeps busy braking all international laws and withdrawing from all
international treaties which stand it the way of his "messianic" goals, the
world is facing a new major race in the field of design and production of
Weapons of Mass Destruction.
By definition, an arms race can only occur between adversaries.
We didn't get nervous when Europe developed the Eurofighter or when
Britain built Trident-class nuclear submarines. We didn't feel the need
to counter a "European military threat" with weapons of our own.
Because they're not our enemy.
Russia is no longer an adversary of the U.S.. If they want to build an
anti-ballistic missile system, it's not aimed at us. Guess which
nations they are aiming it at. Go look at a map.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "gaffo" |
|
| Title: Re: New Arms Race is What The World Really Needs! |
29 Nov 2004 07:04:11 PM |
|
|
Steven Litvintchouk wrote:
Dermot Donovan wrote:
As Bush keeps busy braking all international laws and withdrawing from
all
international treaties which stand it the way of his "messianic"
goals, the
world is facing a new major race in the field of design and production of
Weapons of Mass Destruction.
By definition, an arms race can only occur between adversaries.
We didn't get nervous when Europe developed the Eurofighter or when
Britain built Trident-class nuclear submarines. We didn't feel the need
to counter a "European military threat" with weapons of our own. Because
they're not our enemy.
Russia is no longer an adversary of the U.S.. If they want to build an
anti-ballistic missile system, it's not aimed at us. Guess which
nations they are aiming it at. Go look at a map.
agreed.
but China will be an advisary soon
we will need both Russia and Eurpoe in our side to defend against the
Chinese assholes.
Taiwan is histroy of course - 10 more yrs max, then invasion.
No the pussified US will do nothing.........
China tells the US to bend over, US only asks how far.
I'm not saying anything we haven't known since 1989 - surely.
--
The courts have unanimously (and erroneously) refused to let defense
attorneys argue for nullification, typically by insisting that the jury
has no power to consider what the law should be, and that juries have no
lawful task but to decide whether the defendant broke the law. Yet, in a
fit of sheer inconsistency, the same federal courts of appeals are also
unanimous that it is permissible for prosecutors to urge juries to act
as the "conscience of the community" and use their verdict to "send a
message" about whether society should be willing to tolerate the
defendant's alleged conduct. James J. Duane, "What Message Are We
Sending to Criminal Jurors When We Ask Them to 'Send a Message' With
Their Verdict?," 22 Am. J. Crim. Law 565, 576-79 (1995).
The Sixth Amendment creates a right for the defendant to insist on a
jury to act as a community conscience and protect him from government
oppression, and yet only the State is allowed, when it chooses, to ask
the jury to consider matters of morality and conscience. Id. at 590-602.
Thus have we witnessed a complete perversion of the constitutional
priorities and structure.
One might fairly summarize the case law this way: "You may hope that the
jury will refuse to apply a harsh, unfair, or inequitable law, but you
may not urge them to do so." Steven Lubet, Modern Trial Advocacy 436 (1993)
If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power
of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as
given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence...If the jury feels that
the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent
circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason
which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to
acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.
4th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Moylan, 1969
[The jury has an] unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in
disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge...The
pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its
prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the
judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law.
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Unites States v. Dougherty, 1972
It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict
according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience,
though in direct opposition to the directionof the court.
John Adams, 1771
......it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law
arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the
subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to
any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the
judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law
and fact.
Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia," 1782
It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the
other hand,presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still
both objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to
take it upon yourselves to judge of both,and to determine the law as
well as the fact in controversy.
Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if
exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear
conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.
Alexander Hamilton, 1804
The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law
and the facts.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
