Maker Pro
Maker Pro

OT: CPU heatsink "heat pipes"

J

JAD

Jan 1, 1970
0
sovereignty, supreme authority in a political community. The concept of
sovereignty has had a long history of development, and it may be said that
every political theorist since Plato has dealt with the notion in some
manner, although not always explicitly. Jean Bodin was the first theorist to
formulate a modern concept of sovereignty. In his Six Bookes of a
Commonweale (1576) Bodin asserted that the prince, or the sovereign, has the
power to declare law. Thomas Hobbes later furthered the concept of kingly
sovereignty by stating that the king not only declares law but creates it;
he thereby gave the sovereign both absolute moral and political power.
Hobbes, like other social-contract theorists, asserted that the king derives
his power from a populace who have collectively given up their own former
personal sovereignty and power and placed it irretrievably in the king.
The concept of sovereignty was closely related to the growth of the modern
nation-state, and today the term is used almost exclusively to describe the
attributes of a state rather than a person. A sovereign state is often
described as one that is free and independent. In its internal affairs it
has undivided jurisdiction over all persons and property within its
territory. It claims the right to regulate its economic life without regard
for its neighbors and to increase armaments without limit. No other nation
may rightfully interfere in its domestic affairs. In its external relations
it claims the right to enforce its own conception of rights and to declare
war.

This description of a sovereign state is denied, however, by those who
assert that international law is binding. Because states are limited by
treaties and international obligations and are not legally permitted by the
United Nations Charter to commit aggression at will, they argue that the
absolute freedom of a sovereign state is, and should be, a thing of the
past. In current international practice this view is generally accepted. The
United Nations is today considered the principal organ for restraining the
exercise of sovereignty.

In the United States, the nation (i.e. the federal government) and each
state are considered sovereign. Among conflicts in which the concept comes
into play are those between the federal and state governments (see states'
rights) and those between citizens and either the federal or a state
government. Governments are generally held to be immune from suit for
consequences of their sovereign acts (those acts the government was
constituted or empowered to perform). This "sovereign immunity" must be
waived to permit suit against the government. It is also encountered in
claims that government officials, in pursuance of their duties, be immune
from having to give evidence before a tribunal or inquiry.
 
S

Spehro Pefhany

Jan 1, 1970
0
Stomp, cry, bellow, giggle, do whatever you feel like. The fact of the
matter is the Taliban was not a recognized government. Worse yet, for you,
the other one WAS.

?? I've been avoiding the political threads.. but..

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates all recognized the
Taliban government prior to 9/11.

There are still a couple of dozen states (a fairly pathetic lot
generally, some of whom have been paid off by aid) who recognize the
government in little Taipei as the sole legitimate government of all
of China. It took from 1949 until 1971 (22 years) for the UN to
recognize the facts on the ground, boot the ROC and replace it with
the PRC. It took another 8 years for the US to accept it (30 years
total).

The "unofficial" nature of relations with the Republic of China is
pretty much a convenient lie. The American Institute in Taiwan is an
embassy in all but name, shielded by a shell nonprofit corporation,
but in reality funded by the US State Department. It can even get you
a US passport, assuming you qualify. Further, I can assure you that
the "Taipei Economic and Cultural Office" in New York City issues
Republic of China visas that are quite real and quite official. I have
one right here and it worked just fine.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
 
bill.sloman:

David Maynard:
Notice how it moved from 'a specific term under international law',
to 'it's 'specified' by whether it's recognized or not', to the silly
argument that 'if it is not recognized, it is not recognized'.

bill.sloman:
David Maynard:
In this context the 'international community" is the collection of
recognized sovereigns capable of recognizing another government.

Notice that now 'recognized goverment' changed to 'recognized
sovereign'.

bill.sloman:/snip/.

David Maynard:
Of course not. It does not mean many other things either.

bill.sloman:
David Maynard:
No, it's an article of his opinion on what he thinks they 'should', or can,
look at. He has no authority to dictate to the court nor the government. He
can simply 'argue his case'.

Notice that it is ' his opinion on what he thinks...'
Of course is his opinion; if he were giving an order it would not
be an opinion.

David Maynard:
You also confuse domestic commercial matters with the international
political. As the article you, yourself, presented "the advance this
judgment makes is to prise away the question of who is the government for
international, political purposes from the question of who it is for
domestic legal purposes."

Could you explain how he has confused 'domestic commercial matters
with the international political'? Where was any mention of 'domestic
commercial matters'? It looks as if the confused one is you.

David Maynard:
I'll be more precise, I can't find reference to any sovereign 'recognizing'
the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan and they definitely
did not occupy the UN seat for Afghanistan, a condition normally accepted
as being 'recognized'.

Wrong. Read Spehro's reply.

Geo
 
'I already presented one, whether it occupies the official UN seat.'
Richard Henry wrote:

Quoting JAD:
'A sovereign state is often described as one that is free and
independent. In its internal affairs it has undivided jurisdiction
over all persons and property within its territory.
..... The United Nations is today considered the principal organ for
*restraining* the exercise of sovereignty.
....In the United States, the nation (i.e. the federal government) and
each state are considered sovereign.'
...whether it occupies the official UN seat.
'neither claiming/being proclaimed Sovereign, nor merely exercising
the power of a Sovereign is sufficient, sovereignty requires both
elements.'

You had claimed that 'the "recognized government," (is) a specific
term under international law', but in the URL you quoted says 'as an
attorney, I am well aware of the fact sovereignty is not a
legal/international law issue'


So, what is it?


Geo
 
D

David Maynard

Jan 1, 1970
0
GEO" [email protected] said:
'I already presented one, whether it occupies the official UN seat.'




Quoting JAD:
'A sovereign state is often described as one that is free and
independent. In its internal affairs it has undivided jurisdiction
over all persons and property within its territory.
.... The United Nations is today considered the principal organ for
*restraining* the exercise of sovereignty.
...In the United States, the nation (i.e. the federal government) and
each state are considered sovereign.'

Try to make a point after you quote something.

The operative phrase of the first is "often described as" and is neither a
complete description nor a formal one.

Yes, the UN is today considered the principle organ.

The United States is a recognized government. How it handles internal
sovereignty it's own matter, and rather unique I might add.

'neither claiming/being proclaimed Sovereign, nor merely exercising
the power of a Sovereign is sufficient, sovereignty requires both
elements.'

You had claimed that 'the "recognized government," (is) a specific
term under international law', but in the URL you quoted says 'as an
attorney, I am well aware of the fact sovereignty is not a
legal/international law issue'


So, what is it?

A typical fragment quote to obfuscate but the meaning is clear in the
original text.

"The claim that Taiwan is sovereign is usually based on three possible
confusions. Many of the pundits base their arguments for Taiwanese
sovereignty on some pseudo-legal argument that some treaty in the last
century somehow ceded Taiwan to Taiwan or some such. I must confess I never
paid much heed, because as an attorney, I am well aware of the fact
sovereignty is not a legal/international law issue. The other thing that
confuses people is they equate limited independence with sovereignty.
Taiwan certainly does have some form of limited autonomy but that is not
sovereignty."

He's saying you cannot 'litigate' yourself into sovereignty. You cannot
take the international community to 'court' and obtain a court 'judgment'
that you are a sovereign as there is no 'legal' argument to be made, and no
'law' which says if you meet thus and thus 'poof' you're a sovereign, which
is why he calls it "pseudo legal" and why, as a lawyer, he never paid much
heed to any of that nonsense and why it "is not a legal/international law
issue." You cannot 'litigate' it.

"Sovereignty exists when other recognized governments recognize a
government as being the highest legitimate government of the land which it
claims. Sovereignty is given by other sovereign nations. You can not bestow
it on yourself."

As I have been trying to tell you folks all along.
 
D

David Maynard

Jan 1, 1970
0
GEO" [email protected] said:
David Maynard:



Notice how it moved from 'a specific term under international law',

Still is.
to 'it's 'specified' by whether it's recognized or not',
Precisely.

to the silly
argument that 'if it is not recognized, it is not recognized'.
Precisely.




David Maynard:



Notice that now 'recognized goverment' changed to 'recognized
sovereign'.

They both apply.

bill.sloman:


/snip/.

David Maynard:



Of course not. It does not mean many other things either.

Except that whether a government is recognized is the topic and the "many
other things" are not.
bill.sloman:



David Maynard:



Notice that it is ' his opinion on what he thinks...'
Of course is his opinion; if he were giving an order it would not
be an opinion.

The issue is what constitutes a recognized government and 'opinion' does
not control the matter.

Now that we're past your meaningless babble...
David Maynard:



Could you explain how he has confused 'domestic commercial matters
with the international political'? Where was any mention of 'domestic
commercial matters'? It looks as if the confused one is you.

If you hadn't snipped the rest of what I said you wouldn't be confused but,
no matter, you left enough for the important gist of it: "international,
political purposes" vs "domestic legal purposes."

"Domestic legal purposes" have no bearing on the international recognition
matter.

David Maynard:



Wrong.

It is perfectly accurate and I've provided the international law references
to support it.
Read Spehro's reply.

If I ever see something from a "Spehro" I'll read it.
 
D

David Maynard

Jan 1, 1970
0
GEO" [email protected] said:
Notice that when quoted by Bill it was just an opinion, but when he
is the one doing the quoting it becomes authoritative.

That's because this 'it' is a different 'it' on a different topic.
Specifically, this 'it' is international law and how a government gets
recognized, or not..


It is perfectly accurate as shown by the Northern Alliance seated at the UN
and not the Taliban.
Read Spehro's reply.

If I ever see something from a "Spehro" I'll read it.

Too bad you can't make your own points.
 
R

Richard Henry

Jan 1, 1970
0
GEO said:
You had claimed that 'the "recognized government," (is) a specific
term under international law', but in the URL you quoted says 'as an
attorney, I am well aware of the fact sovereignty is not a
legal/international law issue'

Oh.

Mr. Maynard is an attorney. Somehow I missed that.

To quote an attorney friend of mine (and I don't think it is original with
him)

"When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against
you, argue the facts. When both the facts and the law are against you, just
argue."
 
D

David Maynard

Jan 1, 1970
0
Spehro said:
?? I've been avoiding the political threads.. but..

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates all recognized the
Taliban government prior to 9/11.

Ah, good. Someone finally came up with a few that recognized them, which
should put to bed the matter of recognition being bestowed by other
governments and not simply a matter of 'existing'.

My statement about them not being recognized is the UN as that is the basis
of international law (the only basis someone could attempt to argue the US
did something 'illegal'). They had a few friends but not enough, by a long
long shot, to be recognized. (Individual state recognition only matters to
the individual states who do so but member nations are obligated to
recognize any state that is UN recognized and international law applies)

As a side note, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (not sure about the UAE) are not
a surprise as they, or strong elements in them, support radical Islamic
fundamentalism and that's also a terrorist issue, how it was funded and
spread, etc. I.E. The Taliban came out of the Pakistan madrassas funded by
Saudi Arabia so they would naturally be 'sympathetic'.

There are still a couple of dozen states (a fairly pathetic lot
generally, some of whom have been paid off by aid) who recognize the
government in little Taipei as the sole legitimate government of all
of China. It took from 1949 until 1971 (22 years) for the UN to
recognize the facts on the ground, boot the ROC and replace it with
the PRC. It took another 8 years for the US to accept it (30 years
total).

Yep. Which should also put to bed the matter of holding a UN seat simply
because one wants to.
The "unofficial" nature of relations with the Republic of China is
pretty much a convenient lie. The American Institute in Taiwan is an
embassy in all but name, shielded by a shell nonprofit corporation,
but in reality funded by the US State Department. It can even get you
a US passport, assuming you qualify. Further, I can assure you that
the "Taipei Economic and Cultural Office" in New York City issues
Republic of China visas that are quite real and quite official. I have
one right here and it worked just fine.

Yes, I am aware of the seeming contradiction but it isn't of no consequence
as the recognition matter affects a number of international standing issues.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Thank you for an informative post.
 
D

David Maynard

Jan 1, 1970
0
JAD said:
sovereignty, supreme authority in a political community. The concept of
sovereignty has had a long history of development, and it may be said that
every political theorist since Plato has dealt with the notion in some
manner, although not always explicitly. Jean Bodin was the first theorist to
formulate a modern concept of sovereignty. In his Six Bookes of a
Commonweale (1576) Bodin asserted that the prince, or the sovereign, has the
power to declare law. Thomas Hobbes later furthered the concept of kingly
sovereignty by stating that the king not only declares law but creates it;
he thereby gave the sovereign both absolute moral and political power.
Hobbes, like other social-contract theorists, asserted that the king derives
his power from a populace who have collectively given up their own former
personal sovereignty and power and placed it irretrievably in the king.
The concept of sovereignty was closely related to the growth of the modern
nation-state, and today the term is used almost exclusively to describe the
attributes of a state rather than a person. A sovereign state is often
described as one that is free and independent. In its internal affairs it
has undivided jurisdiction over all persons and property within its
territory. It claims the right to regulate its economic life without regard
for its neighbors and to increase armaments without limit. No other nation
may rightfully interfere in its domestic affairs. In its external relations
it claims the right to enforce its own conception of rights and to declare
war.

This description of a sovereign state is denied, however, by those who
assert that international law is binding. Because states are limited by
treaties and international obligations and are not legally permitted by the
United Nations Charter to commit aggression at will, they argue that the
absolute freedom of a sovereign state is, and should be, a thing of the
past. In current international practice this view is generally accepted. The
United Nations is today considered the principal organ for restraining the
exercise of sovereignty.

In the United States, the nation (i.e. the federal government) and each
state are considered sovereign. Among conflicts in which the concept comes
into play are those between the federal and state governments (see states'
rights) and those between citizens and either the federal or a state
government. Governments are generally held to be immune from suit for
consequences of their sovereign acts (those acts the government was
constituted or empowered to perform). This "sovereign immunity" must be
waived to permit suit against the government. It is also encountered in
claims that government officials, in pursuance of their duties, be immune
from having to give evidence before a tribunal or inquiry.

Yes, however the issue at hand is international law and that paragraph
clarifies...

"In international law, sovereignty is the exercise of power by a state. De
jure sovereignty is the legal right to do so; de facto sovereignty is the
ability in fact to do so (which becomes of special concern upon the failure
of the usual expectation that de jure and de facto sovereignty exist at the
place and time of concern, and rest in the same organization). Foreign
governments recognize the sovereignty of a state over a territory, or
refuse to do so."

As the other articles have noted, people here are confusing de facto
sovereignty, ability, with de jure sovereignty, legality.
 
Z

Zak

Jan 1, 1970
0
Spehro said:
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates all recognized the
Taliban government prior to 9/11.

ISTR the US government also did business with the Taliban, paying them
to reduce opium production.


Thomas
 
C

Conor

Jan 1, 1970
0
As a side note, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (not sure about the UAE) are not
a surprise as they, or strong elements in them, support radical Islamic
fundamentalism and that's also a terrorist issue, how it was funded and
spread, etc.

ROFLMAO...what completely uninformed typical Merkin bullshit.
 
C

Conor

Jan 1, 1970
0
ISTR the US government also did business with the Taliban, paying them
to reduce opium production.

The US Government does alot of business with certain groups like the
Taliban, labelling them terrorists when they finally decide not to do
Washingtons bidding.
 
D

David Maynard

Jan 1, 1970
0
Richard said:
Oh.

Mr. Maynard is an attorney. Somehow I missed that.

You need to reread what he wrote.

To quote an attorney friend of mine (and I don't think it is original with
him)

"When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against
you, argue the facts. When both the facts and the law are against you, just
argue."

That, of course, is why there's a judge.

My favorite People's Court, back when Wopner was still the judge, involved
a lawyer as the defendant and his arguments were so incorrect that Wopner
asked him at one point where he went to law school. "Did they teach you
that?" And said something akin to, if they did then I want to make a note
to tell prospective law students not to go there.

But the most illuminating part was the after interview where he explained
if he had been in a regular court he was sure he could have muddled things
enough to get by but "you can't fool judge Wopner."

Or, put another way, he knew darn good and well he was in the wrong before
he got there.
 
David said:
Oh but I do. The only thing I don't understand is what makes you think you
can simply 'invent' your own definition of recognized government and expect
all the governments of the world, not to mention the UN, to obey your
arbitrary decree.

Nice try. Please quote this definition of sovereignty which you've
alleged I've invented.
For your further education, this is known as setting a up a "straw
man".
They tend to be a bit stuffy about that sort of thing like "who made you god?"

And I tend to be a bit stuffy about fatuous inventions - try arguing
with what I've written, rather than what you would have liked me to
have written.
How about The European Journal of International Law? Surely that can't be a
'Bush invention'.

http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol9/No3/art3-01.html

<snipped a chunk of very selective quotation>

Anyone who reads the whole article will find a rather more balanced
assessment of the issues involved in recognition.

Here's a quote which is more to my taste

" the three so-called traditional criteria of statehood (state
population, state territory, effective government) "
All it takes is one to show they didn't sit in the UN seat and the Northern
Alliance did.

Which was - as even you ought to appreciate - a joke.
Stomp, cry, bellow, giggle, do whatever you feel like. The fact of the
matter is the Taliban was not a recognized government. Worse yet, for you,
the other one WAS.

The Northern Alliance might have been a recognised entity, but it
wasn't a government, and certainly not of the 90% of Afghanistan ruled
by the Taliban.
And what have you learned from your new found knowledge?

That international diplomacy has lot in common with high comedy, and
very little to do with reality. You should love it.
 
Top