Russell, it is a shame you chose a straw man comment to supposedly illustrate the position of those that disagree with this Bill (Act).
Your presumption of restraint on the part of so called "rights holders" seems misplaced. Currently Lime Wire is being asked for $75 trillion by the US recording industry. That's about 6 times the US GDP and more than the world's GDP. Services such as Youtube are constantly taking down content that has no business being removed, because the presumption of guilt is a less risky position to take, even if it is not exactly what the law says.
Nuisance lawyers are springing up all over the world. There business model is to use laws like this to threaten and shake money out of Internet users, such as you, your children and Melissa Lee.
Frankly, the ignorance demonstrated by those who spoke in favour of the bill was far more terrifying than your commentator on NBR. Lee and Young - take a bow.
On the bright side, at least Labour here isn’t seriously facing the downright sadistic beating voters handed to the New South Wales ALP over the weekend.
It is more of an indictment on the Libs that they were not able to kick out a corrupt state administration years ago. Australian State politics, a foetid, festering carbuncle on the name of democracy....
Clinton’s admission that there is ongoing dialogue with The Colonel implies that all avenues were not exhausted before bombs were dropped.
Exhausting all avenues takes time, as many bloody dictators know. Whilst the exhaustion takes place they just carry on with their mass murder.
Obviously there is a balance to be struck, but surely Gaddafi had taken this issue past the point of no return?
I wonder what this thread would be like if the international community was still squabbling about whether to intervene whilst Gaddafi had regained control of Libyan cities and was still conducting house to house murders.
I know a lot of people have become thoroughly disillusioned with the Western military establishment
Conal, the UN is stationed in countries all across the globe, both militarily and economically. Sometimes it is helpful sometimes it is not. What it does have is a clear and constant mandate to intervene.
Most of the time non-western troops are used, often for the reasons you described.
And, that thing you mentioned about Hitler. It was quite a big deal I gather.
But maybe it will all end up Leonard Coheny
I did my best, it wasn't much
I couldn't feel, so I tried to touch
I've told the truth, I didn't come to fool you
And even though
It all went wrong
I'll stand before the Lord of Song
With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah
The economic incentive with Libya would surely have been to let Gadaffi re-assert his control and keep the oil flowing. Instead there is now nothing but uncertainty on that front, along with a hope that some of the worst humanitarian excesses will be avoided. And it is still only a hope, for sure.
Attributing the current actions to an oil grab is very counter-intuitive.
Again, different situation with Iraq.
Chris - what's your point?
Intervention shouldn't happen in Libya because it wasn't sustained in Sudan?
Top Ten Ways that Libya 2011 is Not Iraq 2003, and simultaneously harbouring qualms about where this will go
Ditto. Another difference between this situation and Iraq 03 is this...
Before the Iraqi invasion many people, including myself, expressed grave concerns about the motives and Bush and Blair and the possible outcomes. We knew we were being lied to in many ways.
However, whilst Gadaffi was butchering his own people and the UN was procrastinating, I don't recall seeing similar statements from people who are now criticising the UN/UK/USA/France et al.
The reason being, what Gadaffi was doing was abhorrent, and to have suggested a non-interventionist approach was to support his actions.
A Puddock sat by the lochan's brim,
An' he thocht there was never a puddock like him.
He sat on his hurdies, he waggled his legs,
An' cockit his heid as he glowered throu' the seggs
The bigsy wee cratur' was feelin' that prood,
He gapit his mou' an' he croakit oot lood
"Gin ye'd a' like tae see a richt puddock," quo' he,
" Ye'll never, I'll sweer, get a better nor me.
I've fem'lies an' wives an' a weel-plenished hame,
Wi' drink for my thrapple an' meat for my wame.
The lasses aye thocht me a fine strappin' chiel,
An' I ken I'm a rale bonny singer as weel.
I'm nae gaun tae blaw, but the truth I maun tell-
I believe I'm the verra MacPuddock himsel'."
A heron was hungry an' needin' tae sup,
Sae he nabbit th' puddock and gollup't him up;
Syne 'runkled his feathers: "A peer thing," quo' he,
"But-puddocks is nae as fat as they eesed tae be."
The latest Down Under Feminists’ Carnival has a very useful round up to feminist responses to various kinds of rape apology in the Assange case.
I read the post on Gordon Campbell's Scoop article and wonder whether the poster actually read Gordon's piece. http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2011/01/06/gordon-campbell-reviews-the-general-response-to-wikileaks/
Just as Assange’s personal behaviour has no bearing on the validity of what his organisation has revealed, the value of the Wikileaks revelations should equally have no bearing on the outcome of the complaints against him.
The "rape apologist" label applied to Gordon Campbell was appalling, IMO .
In the mean time, some of the plans to attack and discredit Wikileaks and sow discontent amongst volunteers surface.