AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-06-28, 17:30   Link #3121
GuidoHunter_Toki
Wiggle Your Big Toe
*AnimeSuki Site Staff
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Milwaukee
Age: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
A law to outlaw linking without permission is unnecessary; they can already block traffic by 'referrer'. That essentially no papers do so illustrates the problem with such a strategy: as long as one reasonable-substitute competitor allows inlinking, bloggers/aggregators don't care, and the anti-inlinking paper has only hurt itself.
__________________
GuidoHunter_Toki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-28, 18:58   Link #3122
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
No, you see, the media is probably one of the most powerful organizations in any country. They're backed by a lot of different corporations, and their influence is a very powerful weapon used now and again by those who wield them.

It's not that I'm saying "there's more than meets the eye" because I believe Zelaya to be a good guy or something (he looks like a neo-feudalist sort of son of a bitch, so I don't think I'd like him)--it's that there's always more than meets the eye in these sorts of situations. The media have vested interests, or else they wouldn't be so staunchly against him.
The media's dislike for the guy may have something to do with this.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-28, 21:16   Link #3123
Shadow Kira01
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
Spend tax yen on welfare, not anime museum, Hatoyama says

Quote:
"I'll make every effort to reinstate extra welfare payments for single-parent households, instead of building a 'hall of anime,'" Hatoyama said at a gathering in Sapporo.
+1 for Hatoyama!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Not really, there are many ways around it.

Perhaps, the law prevents the bankruptcy of some newspapers that people rarely buy but it is no doubt at the same time a threat to the freedom of the press and also freedom of speech. For that matter, I doubt the bill will successfully pass. More over, the bill only affect certain nations and all you got to do is avoid posting links of those certain nations, its all fine!
__________________

Last edited by Shadow Kira01; 2009-06-28 at 21:34. Reason: added topic.
Shadow Kira01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-29, 08:26   Link #3124
ZephyrLeanne
On a sabbatical
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wellington, NZ
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Kira01 View Post
I ABSOLUTELY AGREE! You know how Japan has been praised to be handicap-friendly?? Sure it is, if you're in a wheelchair. Things like hearing loss don't count. And if they were really serious about it, then my cousin wouldn't have her prosthetic legs stuck between the gaps at some private railway.
__________________
ZephyrLeanne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-29, 11:36   Link #3125
mg1942
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356 View Post
That has nothing to do with state rights and everything to do with idiot neo-cons who can't accept that they lost on the national level and are now trying to continue their damage at a state level. It doesn't have anything to do with any federal regulations, but specificly the state environmental regulations.
It is about another form of tax being pushed as an environmental bill. This bill is based on junk partisan political backed science. If it indeed was for helping the environment (if it needs help) and the true science actually supported the goals, many would be for it as opposed. The only thing this bill does is give the federal government more power over the states by regulation and the people by taxation.

Quote:
If it did cover anything else, it'd be unconstitutional. Section 8 of the constitution grants the power to regulate commerce to the federal government. Surely something like this would be covered under that. So it still wouldn't be about state rights, and be about idiot neo-cons who can't accept that they lost.
The Fedzilla only has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, not all commerce. Intrastate commerce is for each individual State to regulate, so yes, this could end up being a States rights issue.

Quote:
The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes
mg1942 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-29, 13:09   Link #3126
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by mg1942 View Post
It is about another form of tax being pushed as an environmental bill. This bill is based on junk partisan political backed science. If it indeed was for helping the environment (if it needs help) and the true science actually supported the goals, many would be for it as opposed. The only thing this bill does is give the federal government more power over the states by regulation and the people by taxation.
No, it's a completely seperate issue. It has absolutely nothing to do with the federal cap and trade bill other than timing. If you had read the original article cited in the one you linked to, you'd see that the bill bars the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, a state agency, from enacting new rules about climate change, specificly relating to new emmissions standards for cars they decided on last year.


Quote:
The Fedzilla only has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, not all commerce. Intrastate commerce is for each individual State to regulate, so yes, this could end up being a States rights issue.
Which would certainly apply, if this bill in question applied to anything other than Arizona's own environmental regulations. National environmental regulations are certainly interstate not intrastate. My point there was, if the article you linked to was correct, it'd be a case of a state trying to take a power specificly granted to the federal government. However, it isn't, so this has nothing to do with state's rights at all. It's about a state legislature passing legislation that effects a state agency. States rights in no way comes into play here.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-29, 14:48   Link #3127
mg1942
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
^^ Environmental issues are not interstate commerce......just saying..........

And, it looks like you didn't read the entire article either. The Arizona bill does apply to cap and trade.

Quote:
It also would halt further work on any sort of "cap and trade" system of greenhouse gases, which would set new limits on emissions from industrial sources such as power plants. Electric utilities have been at the forefront of fighting this proposal, claiming higher costs.

http://www.azstarnet.com/business/298096

Regardless of how you try to spin this, this bill WILL be about States rights.
mg1942 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-29, 15:12   Link #3128
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
Actually, environmental issues are *regional* ... which means they often don't follow political state lines (like sharing a river or one state's air crap blowing into another). Every once in a while you hear some wishful thinking about re-organizing the US along bioregional lines (like the Cascadia region, etc) but it usually stalls out because some areas of the country just suck resource-wise

I actually prefer that states with shared resources just work something out (like the Northwest states do (mostly) with the Columbia River or salmon runs). The fed should only dip in if it isn't resolved that way. Handle problems at the most local level possible and escalate only if necessary...

Hell, the West Coast of the US gets its fair share of Chinese pollution thanks to the jet stream so there are even channels for working on that problem. Having standardized procedures and protocols in place makes it more difficult for polluters to skate across state or national borders to avoid cleaning up after themselves.

It is funny to watch when corporations flee to the Fed for standardization when each state seriously threatens to set their own rules and standards though
__________________

Last edited by Vexx; 2009-06-29 at 15:22.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-29, 15:14   Link #3129
mg1942
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Ok let's get back down to basics.
This is about the Cap and Trade bill that passed the US House of Representatives on Jun 26. Then I made a post about a bill that passed the senate in Arizona that does allow them to overturn state environmental nonsense from last year if it passes their house and their govenor signs it. It also says specifically says, "A passage could also give the state means to challenge the federal government in court over the proposed Waxman-Markey bill, which would put over $1,600 in yearly costs on American citizens to cut carbon emissions."

Do you understand that now? It's a legal basis for Arizona to challenge the CAP & Trade bill based on Arizona's own legislation. It becomes a MAJOR state issue at that point. Further, what part of the Constitution gives the fedzilla the power to enact federal guidelines over how much carbon you can produce, or better yet, how energy efficient a home in Texas is as opposed to Michigan? There isn't one. Those are state issues that the states have the right to rule over, not Washington DC.
mg1942 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-29, 15:28   Link #3130
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
Even if it is used to try that - watch and I bet the corporations will try and end-run around states rights so they don't have to contend with a balkanized set of standards. Most corporations that operate across state lines HATE "state's rights" for that reason.

I think it'll be interesting to see how Arizona's maneuver plays out, if that is what they're trying, because the Fed will have to show that carbon emission control does have interstate implications whether or not it actually moves across state lines. IANAL but I can imagine some deft and twisty debate logic from either side.
__________________

Last edited by Vexx; 2009-06-29 at 15:46.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-29, 15:43   Link #3131
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by mg1942 View Post
Ok let's get back down to basics.
This is about the Cap and Trade bill that passed the US House of Representatives on Jun 26. Then I made a post about a bill that passed the senate in Arizona that does allow them to overturn state environmental nonsense from last year if it passes their house and their govenor signs it. It also says specifically says, "A passage could also give the state means to challenge the federal government in court over the proposed Waxman-Markey bill, which would put over $1,600 in yearly costs on American citizens to cut carbon emissions."
No, it's a bill that specificly says a state agency can't impose restrictions to curtail climate change. It would cover a state cap and trade bill, if any existed, but it doesn't apply to anything federal, as that would not be under the a state agency, which the bill does apply to.

The actual bill: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/sb1147p.pdf

As you can see, it applies specificly to state agencies. It bans state emission regulations and state cap and trade laws. It does not and cannot cover the federal cap and trade bill.

Quote:
Do you understand that now? It's a legal basis for Arizona to challenge the CAP & Trade bill based on Arizona's own legislation. It becomes a MAJOR state issue at that point. Further, what part of the Constitution gives the fedzilla the power to enact federal guidelines over how much carbon you can produce, or better yet, how energy efficient a home in Texas is as opposed to Michigan? There isn't one. Those are state issues that the states have the right to rule over, not Washington DC.
It's a bill that applies to a state agency. They can't challange regulations posed by a federal agency with this because it's not the agency that the law covers, and the federal laws would trump the state laws anyway.

As for what part of the constitution, environmental regualtions are imposed on businesses. As such it's covered under section 8 of the constitution reguarding the regulation of interstate commerce. States have a right to pass their own intra state regulations that apply within the state, and the federal government has a right to pass interstate regulations that apply to all the states. Regardless, it's irrelevent because this is a bill that applies to a state agency and nothing else. There's no dispute over states rights here at all.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-29, 17:52   Link #3132
mg1942
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
How does environmental issues affect interstate commerce? Interstate commerce is the actual trade that happens between States. How does California's building code affect interstate commerce? Remember, there is a 300 page amendment to the cap and trade bill that will force California's building code on the other 49 States.
mg1942 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-29, 17:53   Link #3133
mg1942
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356 View Post
No, it's a bill that specificly says a state agency can't impose restrictions to curtail climate change. It would cover a state cap and trade bill, if any existed, but it doesn't apply to anything federal, as that would not be under the a state agency, which the bill does apply to.

The actual bill: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/sb1147p.pdf

As you can see, it applies specificly to state agencies. It bans state emission regulations and state cap and trade laws. It does not and cannot cover the federal cap and trade bill.


It's a bill that applies to a state agency. They can't challange regulations posed by a federal agency with this because it's not the agency that the law covers, and the federal laws would trump the state laws anyway.
The bill in Arizona was designed to reign in out of control GHG regulation within the state and through it's agencies. That is not the issue. What is at issue was the LAST PARAGRAPH of teh article which specifically states that the foundation for an argument against a federal cap and trade bill would be in place with the passage of a state law forbidding cap and trade style laws. The premise that if it's illegal for the state, it is not likely ok for the fedzilla to do it either.


Quote:
As for what part of the constitution, environmental regualtions are imposed on businesses. As such it's covered under section 8 of the constitution reguarding the regulation of interstate commerce. States have a right to pass their own intra state regulations that apply within the state, and the federal government has a right to pass interstate regulations that apply to all the states. Regardless, it's irrelevent because this is a bill that applies to a state agency and nothing else. There's no dispute over states rights here at all.
Section 8 regulates interstate commerce. It is not an excuse for an environmental act. If such an act is passed that forces a state to comply with the current terms in HR 2454, it will violate state rights. If you want to argue it, read HR 2454, and the amendment added with passage, and you will see there are many different regulations that do not fall under the scope of the fedzilla's power. Forcing a state to adopt building codes is a huge one. Forcing a state to adopt energy standards for power generation is another. All are outside the scope of the fedzilla, and all are further attempts to grow the fedzilla even more.
mg1942 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-29, 19:40   Link #3134
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by mg1942 View Post
The bill in Arizona was designed to reign in out of control GHG regulation within the state and through it's agencies. That is not the issue. What is at issue was the LAST PARAGRAPH of teh article which specifically states that the foundation for an argument against a federal cap and trade bill would be in place with the passage of a state law forbidding cap and trade style laws. The premise that if it's illegal for the state, it is not likely ok for the fedzilla to do it either.
You didn't read the actual bill in question I linked to did you? It specificly says it only applies to state agencies established under titles 41 or 49. It doesn't make it illegal to enact new regulations either. It requires the state agency to file an economic impact statement with the legislature at least 3 months in advance and get legislative approval. Once again, it's an attempt to override state environmental regulations approved last year. It has no effect on anything done at the local or federal level, only the state level. The last paragraph of the article is irrelevent if the actual bill doesn't support what said article claims.



Quote:
Section 8 regulates interstate commerce. It is not an excuse for an environmental act. If such an act is passed that forces a state to comply with the current terms in HR 2454, it will violate state rights. If you want to argue it, read HR 2454, and the amendment added with passage, and you will see there are many different regulations that do not fall under the scope of the fedzilla's power. Forcing a state to adopt building codes is a huge one. Forcing a state to adopt energy standards for power generation is another. All are outside the scope of the fedzilla, and all are further attempts to grow the fedzilla even more.
Even if that is true, it's not relevent to the bill here. Also I fail to see how adopting regulations for building codes and power generation doesn't apply to commerce. Hell, things like power generation didn't even exist when the constitution was written, so you need to stick them where they fit best. In this case under commerce, which the constitution once again expressly grants the federal government control over.

Also, let's be honest here. The whole state's rights thing is a red herring. Not many on the right had much of a problem when Bushy expanded the federal government's powers, because he was doing stuff they supported. The problem here is "them dirty liberals" are in charge now and doing things that the neo-cons don't like, such as listening to scientists when making environmental policy.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-29, 23:04   Link #3135
TinyRedLeaf
On indefinite hiatus
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
US soldiers leaving Iraq's cities
Quote:
Bagdhad (June 30): American troops are withdrawing from towns and cities in Iraq, six years after the invasion, having formally handed over security duties to new Iraqi forces. A public holiday — National Sovereignty Day — has been declared, and the capital, Baghdad, threw a giant party to mark the eve of the changeover.

United States-led combat operations are due to end by September next year, with all troops gone from Iraq by the end of 2011. Iraqi troops are on the alert for insurgent attacks during the handover.

Despite the pullback from cities and towns, due to be completed today, US troops will still be embedded with Iraqi forces. Some 131,000 US troops remain in Iraq, including 12 combat brigades, and the total is not expected to drop below 128,000 until after the Iraqi national election next January.

The US Ambassador to Iraq, Mr Christopher Hill, said there would be no major reduction in forces until next year but the pullback was a "milestone".

"Yes, we think Iraq is ready and Iraq thinks Iraq is ready," he said. "We have spent a lot of time working very closely with Iraqi security services...and I think there is an understanding that now it is the time."

The pullback comes two years after the US "surge" of extra troops between February and June 2007, which took US troop levels in Iraq to 168,000. There was a decline in violence, but recent months have seen an upsurge.

In the past 10 days nearly 170 people have been killed and many more injured in three attacks in Baghdad and Kirkuk.

- BBC NEWS
TinyRedLeaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-29, 23:48   Link #3136
mg1942
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356 View Post
You didn't read the actual bill in question I linked to did you? It specificly says it only applies to state agencies established under titles 41 or 49. It doesn't make it illegal to enact new regulations either. It requires the state agency to file an economic impact statement with the legislature at least 3 months in advance and get legislative approval. Once again, it's an attempt to override state environmental regulations approved last year. It has no effect on anything done at the local or federal level, only the state level. The last paragraph of the article is irrelevent if the actual bill doesn't support what said article claims.





Even if that is true, it's not relevent to the bill here. Also I fail to see how adopting regulations for building codes and power generation doesn't apply to commerce. Hell, things like power generation didn't even exist when the constitution was written, so you need to stick them where they fit best. In this case under commerce, which the constitution once again expressly grants the federal government control over.

I read the bill you linked and fail to see how you are linking it to barring the state of Arizona from asserting state rights against the Cap and Trade legislation on the federal level. I am going to say this again, "The Arizona Bill only pertains to the state of Arizona." I agree with you that it only pertains to the state of Arizona and it's agencies. If you understood that then you can read on.

Now, if you understood the above, you might possibly grasp the concept that the people of Arizona might not like the fedzilla attempting to push a federal cap and trade style law on them based on the fact that they ban it at the state level from their own state agencies. Maybe just, they might take offense to it and file injunctions and appeals specifically citing their own laws and possibly even cite the 8th section of the Constitution and say that it is not an acceptable expansion of federal government to regulate their carbon dioxide output. That would be the push for state sovereignty that I was mentioning.

Now, you might not like to hear this, but the fedzilla pushing a code of building and energy efficiency on a building is far exceeding the powers granted the federal government in the Constitution. Regardless if a majority in the House or Senate approves it, anything that the states do that is not involved in interstate commerce is not available for regulation.

As for your argument over power generation, I will give you a perfect example. Most municipal utilities in the west generate their own power and distribute it on a local or state level. They do not engage in interstate commerce. So, if they are not engaging in interstate commerce, how can the fedzilla regulate their right to conduct commerce? The answer is simple, the fedzilla can not regulate their commerce as it is not interstate. Now if they are selling power across state lines, then the fed can regulate according to the Constitution ( and if this cap and trade bill does go into effect, I think we will see the end of power companies selling power across State lines...)

Quote:
Also, let's be honest here. The whole state's rights thing is a red herring. Not many on the right had much of a problem when Bushy expanded the federal government's powers, because he was doing stuff they supported.
I had issues over things like Patriot Act. I for one do not approve of any wire tapping without obtaining a warrant first.

Quote:
The problem here is "them dirty liberals" are in charge now and doing things that the neo-cons don't like, such as listening only to the scientists that support their policies and agendas when making environmental policy.
Fixed.

Last edited by mg1942; 2009-06-30 at 00:17.
mg1942 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-30, 01:06   Link #3137
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by mg1942 View Post
I read the bill you linked and fail to see how you are linking it to barring the state of Arizona from asserting state rights against the Cap and Trade legislation on the federal level.
I don't know, maybe because it explicitly says that it only applies to state agencies?

Quote:
I am going to say this again, "The Arizona Bill only pertains to the state of Arizona." I agree with you that it only pertains to the state of Arizona and it's agencies. If you understood that then you can read on.
So then why are you continuing here?

Quote:
Now, if you understood the above, you might possibly grasp the concept that the people of Arizona might not like the fedzilla attempting to push a federal cap and trade style law on them based on the fact that they ban it at the state level from their own state agencies. Maybe just, they might take offense to it and file injunctions and appeals specifically citing their own laws and possibly even cite the 8th section of the Constitution and say that it is not an acceptable expansion of federal government to regulate their carbon dioxide output. That would be the push for state sovereignty that I was mentioning.
Except the law in question explictily says it only applies to state agencies and doesn't ban anything. It's a bill that requires the state environmental agencies to get approval from the state legislature before enacting new regulations. While it effectivly overturns the new regulations approved last year, it doesn't ban them. The state environmental agency can still get those regulations enacted if they convince the state legislature to approve them. It takes the decision away from the governor's office and puts it in the hands of the legislature. If there's a power play here it's between executive and legislative power, not state and federal power.


Quote:
Now, you might not like to hear this, but the fedzilla pushing a code of building and energy efficiency on a building is far exceeding the powers granted the federal government in the Constitution. Regardless if a majority in the House or Senate approves it, anything that the states do that is not involved in interstate commerce is not available for regulation. Mind you, abuse of this over the last 60+ years has become the norm and somewhat accepted... but it does not make it right.
Except that it does involve interstate commerce. Unless you think all the building materials orginate locally? Also if it's accepted and has become the norm, why is it an issue now? Could it be because the neo-cons were kicked out and now can only do their damage at the state and local level?

Quote:
As for your argument over power generation, I will give you a perfect example. Most municipal utilities in the west generate their own power and distribute it on a local or state level. They do not engage in interstate commerce. So, if they are not engaging in interstate commerce, how can the fedzilla regulate their right to conduct commerce? The answer is simple, the fedzilla can not regulate their commerce as it is not interstate. Now if they are selling power across state lines, then the fed can regulate according to the Constitution ( and if this cap and trade bill does go into effect, I think we will see the end of power companies selling power across State lines...)
A large amount of power is sold across state lines, which by definition and your own account is interstate commerce. Further, national regulations on commerce which apply to all the states also counts as interstate commerce. The federal government can't tell Arizona specificly that they need to abide by whatever regulations but they can tell all the states collectively that they do.



Quote:
I had issues over things like Patriot Act. I for one do not approve of any wire tapping without obtaining a warrant first.
Maybe you did, but the vast majority of politicians and pundits who are raising the issue about states rights now are only doing so because they don't like the direction the federal government is going, despite that their favored policies have brought nothing but failure that the liberals are now trying to undo, with varying degrees of success.


Quote:
Fixed.
No, it was right the first time. That thing with all those "scientists opposed to climate change" that was mentioned? It turns out a lot of them aren't against climate change, might have issues with it's effects on something specific or how quickly it's occuring, in a completely unrelated field and not really any more qualified to judge the issue than you or I, or are not scientists at all. The only debate left is how bad and how fast. That climate change exists and is a result of human activity isn't very contested.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-30, 01:45   Link #3138
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Wow. You're really "liberal." Who opposes climate change? It's been changing since forever. "That climate changing" is not contested but "as a result of human activities" is. Well, actually, it can't be contested, such vague and general thing like "human activities." Breathing is an activity, no? Oh no, that's politically incorrect because activities equal factories, cars... and the army, oh wait, that's politically incorrect too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Schneider
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
Amen.

Last edited by iLney; 2009-06-30 at 02:04.
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-30, 02:10   Link #3139
Shadow Kira01
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
Japan holds 3 accused of trading for NKorea

Quote:
TOKYO (AP) -- Japanese police have arrested a North Korean and two Japanese nationals for allegedly trying to export illegally to Myanmar a magnetic measuring device that could be used to develop missiles, an official said Tuesday.

Kanagawa prefectural police official Hideshi Koshita said the three suspects, working under instruction from a North Korean trading firm based in China, were arrested Monday on suspicion of violating the Japanese foreign exchange and trade laws.

Koshita said the measuring device could be used to develop missiles and that officials were investigating the case as a possible example of arms technology links between North Korea and Myanmar - repressive and isolated regimes, both facing international sanctions.

Police said they arrested the three suspects before a shipment.

Ri Kyong Ho, 41, a North Korean citizen living in Japan, was allegedly working under instruction from a North Korean trading company in Beijing. He allegedly conspired with Yasuhiko Muto, 57, a Japanese trading company president, and Miaki Katsuki, 75, a machinery company president, to export the device to Myanmar via Malaysia in January without seeking compulsory approval from the trade minister, the police official said.

The arrests come as the international community steps up efforts to monitor North Korea's trading practices.

A U.S. destroyer is currently tracking a North Korean freighter ship suspected of carrying banned goods off China's coast to Myanmar, in the first test of new U.N. sanctions imposed on Pyongyang's secretive regime in response to its nuclear test-blast in May.

U.S. and other officials are not sure what the Kang Nam 1 is carrying, but suspect it could be a cargo of artillery and other conventional weaponry.

North Korea is suspected to have transported banned goods to military-run Myanmar before on the Kang Nam, said Bertil Lintner, a Thailand-based North Korea expert.

Japan, a neighbor of North Korea, has intensified its suppression of illegal trade with the North, cracking down on its drug trafficking and other operations.

Last year, authorities launched a series of raids on Japanese companies suspected of making and shipping equipment used to enrich uranium for North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Japan now bans all trade with North Korea as punishment for Pyongyang's latest atomic test.
I got the feeling that Japanese businessmen and Chinese companies were definitely involved in North Korea's successful nukes. And it turns out to be true...
__________________
Shadow Kira01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-30, 03:01   Link #3140
ZephyrLeanne
On a sabbatical
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wellington, NZ
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Kira01 View Post
Japan holds 3 accused of trading for NKorea



I got the feeling that Japanese businessmen and Chinese companies were definitely involved in North Korea's successful nukes. And it turns out to be true...
YATTA! The Japanese Communists were helping them all along! DOWN WITH JCP!
__________________
ZephyrLeanne is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
current affairs, discussion, international, news

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:37.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
We use Silk.