Pack a Gun to Protect Valuables from Airline Theft or Loss?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Savageduck on 25 Jan 2010 16:12 On 2010-01-25 12:03:10 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: > In message <2010012509083570933-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes >> On 2010-01-25 08:51:32 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: >> >>> In message <2010012508394329560-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck >>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes >>>> On 2010-01-25 08:18:04 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: >>>>> I realise the US finds people guilty, executes them and then >>>>> identifies >>>>> them.... Often without even bothering any legal system. >>>> You appear to be totally ignorant of the US Legal system, and you >>>> are >>>> basing your opinion on that ignorance. >>> Not at all... seen it in action first hand. (And I don't mean on TV) >> >> Oh! OK, do tell us of your experience with the US Legal system. >> ...and please, no third party, "I know somebody, or I was told" story, >> you have "seen it in action first hand" after all. > > Mainly in the middle east... shoot first and call the dead civilians > "suspected terrorists" ....and that has what to do with the US Legal System? > >>> BTW how many US Drone strikes have there been ion the last 10 days >>> on >>> "suspected terrorists" Ie Civilians who are killed, then identified and >>> then accused of probably being terrorists (those they can still >>> identify) women and children too. >> >> That is a different issue which has nothing to do with the discussion >> regarding Courts and extradition. >> >> Those darn civilians should stop carrying AK47's > > Tell that to gun owners in the Usa.... You really have no idea at all. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Peter on 25 Jan 2010 19:43 "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:lFofXfGrDWXLFAbV(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... > In message <2010012500530350073-christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmailcom >>, C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> writes >>On 2010-01-24 02:57:14 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: >> >>> They want to extradite him from another country (France or Switzerland?) >>> to the USA. It has to be a crime in the country you want to extradite >>> him *from*... >> >>Untrue. And it does not matter what the laws are anywhere else. > It does for extradition > >>He broke the law in California. > > Yes. And the California law has no bearing anywhere else in the world. > > TO extradite the crime committed in California must also be a crime > where you want to extradite him from. > > If for example it is illegal to paint a house green in London. I paint > my house green and then go to the USA. The UK could not extradite me > from the US to the UK because the USA would say "that is not a crime" > > That is how extradition works. > Please show us one reliable cite to prove your point. You have stated it several times. perhaps you might even show us the section in the UK - US extradition treaty you are referring to. -- Peter
From: Peter on 25 Jan 2010 19:55 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2010012513120251816-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2010-01-25 12:03:10 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: > >> In message <2010012509083570933-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes >>> On 2010-01-25 08:51:32 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: >>> >>>> In message <2010012508394329560-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, >>>> Savageduck >>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes >>>>> On 2010-01-25 08:18:04 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: >>>>>> I realise the US finds people guilty, executes them and then >>>>>> identifies >>>>>> them.... Often without even bothering any legal system. >>>>> You appear to be totally ignorant of the US Legal system, and you >>>>> are >>>>> basing your opinion on that ignorance. >>>> Not at all... seen it in action first hand. (And I don't mean on TV) >>> >>> Oh! OK, do tell us of your experience with the US Legal system. >>> ...and please, no third party, "I know somebody, or I was told" story, >>> you have "seen it in action first hand" after all. >> >> Mainly in the middle east... shoot first and call the dead civilians >> "suspected terrorists" > > ...and that has what to do with the US Legal System? > >> >>>> BTW how many US Drone strikes have there been ion the last 10 days >>>> on >>>> "suspected terrorists" Ie Civilians who are killed, then identified and >>>> then accused of probably being terrorists (those they can still >>>> identify) women and children too. >>> >>> That is a different issue which has nothing to do with the discussion >>> regarding Courts and extradition. >>> >>> Those darn civilians should stop carrying AK47's >> >> Tell that to gun owners in the Usa.... > > You really have no idea at all. > He does have an idea. It's whatever we do is wrong! Forget what is real. I would almost like to start a pool, offline, on how long it will be until someone calls s "rightards." -- Peter
From: Peter on 25 Jan 2010 19:58 "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2010012507321116807-christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmailcom... > On 2010-01-25 01:10:15 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: > >> In message <4b5b7c54$0$1677$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer >> <rfischer(a)sonic.net> writes >>> C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said: >>>>> Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >>>>>> Savageduck >>>>> >>>>>>> Yeeeees, but all of this is still hypothetical, and there is still >>>>>>> no >>>>>>> proof of intent to smuggle a weapon into Canada and possess it >>>>>>> illegally. >>>>>> >>>>>> They don't need to do that. >>>>>> You and your unlicensed firearm are in Canada. That is illegal. >>>>> >>>>> Technically no, it is not in Canada. People and goods are not in >>>>> Canada until they clear immigration and customs. >>>> >>>> Technically they are in Canada. >>> >>> Not according to the law. Airports set aside areas that are legally >>> outside of the host country. >> >> Having done counter terrorist work as a member of the military I can >> tell you that you are wrong. >> >> Those areas are "outside the country" for tax rules. Just as bonded >> warehouses are. It just simplifies the transit of goods though >> airports without needing to import and export. Thus saving a lot of >> paperwork, time and money. >> >> Passengers are accorded a similar sort of status in transit as well >> simply to make administration easier otherwise you would need visas for >> any airport you transited though. >> >> However these areas are absolutely part of the host country and subject >> to it's laws and LEA's. As any time the police and military can use >> whatever powers they have at any place in the airport. >> >> Actually as soon as the aircraft enters the countries airspace it, and >> it's passengers, are subject to local laws. > > When using quotes, please make sure that you do not give improper > attribution. I am not the person who said that airports set aside areas > that are legally outside the country. > I agree. If it was worthwhile to go back up the thread I think it was him that made that asinine statement -- Peter
From: Savageduck on 25 Jan 2010 21:51
On 2010-01-25 16:55:12 -0800, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> said: > "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message > news:2010012513120251816-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >> On 2010-01-25 12:03:10 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: >> >>> In message <2010012509083570933-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck >>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes >>>> On 2010-01-25 08:51:32 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: >>>> >>>>> In message <2010012508394329560-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck >>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes >>>>>> On 2010-01-25 08:18:04 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: >>>>>>> I realise the US finds people guilty, executes them and then >>>>>>> identifies >>>>>>> them.... Often without even bothering any legal system. >>>>>> You appear to be totally ignorant of the US Legal system, and you >>>>>> are >>>>>> basing your opinion on that ignorance. >>>>> Not at all... seen it in action first hand. (And I don't mean on TV) >>>> >>>> Oh! OK, do tell us of your experience with the US Legal system. >>>> ...and please, no third party, "I know somebody, or I was told" story, >>>> you have "seen it in action first hand" after all. >>> >>> Mainly in the middle east... shoot first and call the dead civilians >>> "suspected terrorists" >> >> ...and that has what to do with the US Legal System? >> >>> >>>>> BTW how many US Drone strikes have there been ion the last 10 days >>>>> on >>>>> "suspected terrorists" Ie Civilians who are killed, then identified and >>>>> then accused of probably being terrorists (those they can still >>>>> identify) women and children too. >>>> >>>> That is a different issue which has nothing to do with the discussion >>>> regarding Courts and extradition. >>>> >>>> Those darn civilians should stop carrying AK47's >>> >>> Tell that to gun owners in the Usa.... >> >> You really have no idea at all. >> > > > He does have an idea. It's whatever we do is wrong! Forget what is real. > I would almost like to start a pool, offline, on how long it will be > until someone calls s "rightards." I consider myself more of a tightrope specialist. Somewhat conservative regarding my balance to left or right, and liberal with regard to my safety net. -- Regards, Savageduck |