So much for the rule of law ... - by *Zaccheus*
jay pettitt on 14/12/2006 at 22:22
So what, fraud is a bad thing unless you're selling tens of millions of pounds of guns to a non-democratic foreign state that thinks nothing of torturing it's own citizens. That or corrupt peace-nik hippies run the serious fraud squad whom think nothing of destabilising free trade and international relations as long as there's the opportunity to wag the finger at the arms trade. Oh good day.
Also,
Dear Saudi Arabia,
Wanna buy some submarines?
Regards,
The UK.
Also Also Also,
And I realise a gaming forum might not be the best place to rant on such things. But is it not the case that, foreign policy wise, we have systematically failed to do the 'right' thing at every possible (not to mention fundamentally crucial) opportunity and as a result of which have arrived at a position where we are: a) crippled and b) a laughing stock when it comes to trying to do diplomacy and stuff abroad. Go UK.
Aerothorn on 14/12/2006 at 22:52
Your post made no sense and your first two sentences seemed to contradict eachother:confused:
Renegen on 14/12/2006 at 23:07
Goes to show that a vast majority of the population, up to the politicians, are nothing more than keyboard warriors and armchair quarterbacks.
SD on 14/12/2006 at 23:47
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
And I realise a gaming forum might not be the best place to rant on such things. But is it not the case that, foreign policy wise, we have systematically failed to do the 'right' thing at every possible (not to mention fundamentally crucial) opportunity
Well, in this particular instance, it depends on whether you think the 'right' thing to do is to stand up for the principle of law, or to cripple your economy to the tune of £6bn.
Neither option is a particularly pleasant one and - hey! - we're already
trading with a country as vile as Saudi, so why's a little corruption on the side such a big deal?
dvrabel on 14/12/2006 at 23:52
Um. The loss of £6 billion in revenue is not going to cripple the UK economy.
SD on 15/12/2006 at 00:12
Well, it'll cripple it to the tune of £6bn. I think that's what I said :confused:
jay pettitt on 15/12/2006 at 01:33
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
Your post made no sense and your first two sentences seemed to contradict eachother:confused:
Sorry about that.
*Zaccheus* on 15/12/2006 at 12:35
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Well, in this particular instance, it depends on whether you think the 'right' thing to do is to stand up for the principle of law, or to cripple your economy to the tune of £6bn.
Well we certainly know where the government stands. And no surprises from the tories either.
At least the LibDems are complaining.
;)
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Neither option is a particularly pleasant one and - hey! - we're already
trading with a country as vile as Saudi, so why's a little corruption on the side such a big deal?
And next time we can say: hey! - we're already ok with a little corruption on the side so why is
insert unthinkable new policy such a big deal?
:nono:
demagogue on 15/12/2006 at 14:01
For the record, from the perspective of foreign relations law, there has always been a doctrine of soveriegn immunity which might cover things like domestic corruption criminal charges when they cover acting heads of State, for one good reason because it'd open the door to any State handicaping US or UK government, both their ability to conduct foreign relations and their own vulnerability to perpetual frivilous corrpution charges from other States they'd have to take seriously for reciprocity reasons.
Anyway, it's not a new idea in Anglo-American common law. It's a legitimate factor judges can take into account in deciding whether they have jurisdiction over a case, with plenty of precedence. It's not dispositive, but just a factor to weigh against other interests. I don't know all the details here, but particularly when security interests are involved I can see how it went this way.
The main worry is that the executives (Bush admin and Blair gov't) have been so dodgy with security interests, pushing questionable ends, it's a wonder we have to take any claims they make under that banner seriously. Another brick in the wall.
