Re: [OT] The record industry, RIAA and US law

[Joe Hart <j.hart@orange.nl>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Celejar wrote:
[snip]
>> The point is in the pressure applied by lobbyists is well received in
>> the American system.  SIG's are quite alive and active.  The same is
>> true in other countries, but overall the Netherlands is much less
>> influenced by the interest of special groups (like the RIAA)
> 
> Lobbyists pressure government; if the government doesn't regulate the
> news media, than we *still* don't have an explanation for how the
> difference in news coverage can be related to differences in systems of
> government.

Well, I can tell you one difference in news coverage.  When a person is
accused of a crime (but before they are tried), the American system uses
the presumption of innocence, but the media print the name (and
sometimes photos) of the accused and seriously damage the reputation of
the accused and make it much more difficult for a fair trial to take
place because the public has already formed the idea that said accused
are guilty.

Here, the newspapers are not allowed to print the full name, only the
initial, so they could say "Joe H." was found to be engaged in a
political debate.  His statements were quite controversial and a
independent inquiry is being formed to determine if his statements led
the government to believe that he is an extremist.

While that certainly implies guilt, my name is not slurred in the process.


[snip]

>> I am torn when it comes to the Sudan issue.  While I agree that
>> something needs to be done to save the innocent people, I don't think a
>> military action would be the right solution.  It would be very similar
>> to what happened in Somalia, and that was quite a disgrace.  I am afraid
>> that Africa on a general scale is a very difficult situation.
> 
> It certainly is, but as far as I'm concerned, the only question of
> whether to invade is whether we can accomplish anything significant,
> not any pedantic legal concerns.
> 
>>>> What I would like to know is why the United States backs Israel in what
>>>> could be considered inhumane treatment of people under it's control
>>>> (illegally for the last 39 years).
>>> If you refer to our general support of Israel, that's simply explained;
>>> Israel, for any faults it may have, is a friendly, democratic ally, the
>>> only one in the region, and it's surrounded by vicious, savage,
>>> murderous and sometimes lunatic neighbors. If you're referring to
>>> support of specific aspects of Israeli policy that you consider
>>> "inhumane treatment of people under it's control", please be more
>>> specific. Incidentally, I believe that the charge of illegality is
>>> debatable.
>> Well, the Israelis certainly would think it debatable, but even the UN
> 
> 'Even' the UN ?! In addition to whom, the Arab League?
> 
>> declared Israels capture of the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip an
>> illegal action, and issued a mandate for their withdrawal.
> 
> They certainly didn't declare the captures illegal; this is just flat
> out false. As to whether the UN has declared the subsequent occupation
> illegal, that's also debatable. Apparently Kofi Annan said so, and was
> criticized for it in an op-ed piece in the NY Times by Columbia law
> professor George Fletcher [0]; the actual resolutions aren't apparently
> completely clear. Wikipedia has a helpful discussion of the issues
> [1]; although one certainly can't cite it as an authoritative source on
> such a hot button issue, my brief glance at the article (as it exists
> today ...) seems to indicate that it's at least somewhat neutral. 
> 
>> I don't argue that Israel is in the middle of a hotbed.  I also don't
>> argue that they have the right to protect themselves.  What I do argue
>> with is the heavy hand they use in doing so.
> 
> We can debate that, but my point was that our support for them is
> perfectly understandable.
> 

Interesting reading.  I would like to point out that I have a map,
actually the Reader's Digest Atlas of the World, which contain maps of
the area, (c) 1989 by Rand McNally & Company. that shows the areas as
"occupied by Israel, and does not show them as part of Israel.

There is no point in me debating this issue.  I cannot see a good
solution, and your arguments are too strong.  I will concede to you that
it is questionable as to whether Israel is in violation of international
law.

I will also point out that it is questionable whether the United States
should be in Iraq.  To many Iraqi people, the US are the invaders.  Same
can be said for Afghanistan.  The Soviets tried to control Afganistan
for many years.  They learned that those people will fight forever.  The
United States has yet to learn that.  It all boils down to a discussion
that already took place and that is whether one can force democracy by
gunpoint.  Personally, I don't think so.

>> I also don't think a suicide bomber blowing up a restaurant in a crowded
>> market place is right.  I can understand that the Palestinians can only
>> mount so much of an attack, but attacking innocent citizens is not any
>> way to gain sympathy for their cause.
>>
>> Joe
> 
> [0]
> http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60A11FA3B5C0C728EDDAA0894DA404482
> [1]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_the_Arab-Israeli_conflict#Legal_issues_related_to_occupation
> 
> Celejar
> --
> mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email
> ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator
> 
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGSAvbiXBCVWpc5J4RAkqeAJ0YWsyr5LraQtyiakhXCAbd8rei1gCdGXZb
70obKkFzJvd6mJZNny2Rv9g=
=SaY4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----