Ruling against the government in this matter is a career ending move for anybody involved in the decision unless they are have reached the peak of the promotion ladder and are unfireable like the supreme court judges are.
The judges in this matter are in fact appointed for life.
It could help catch
I've always supported the apprehension of meals, especially those from the middle east.
By the way, do tell - what do you think my motives are since you think they are "pretty obvious"?
Truth, Justice and The American Way!
I'm not trying to build a case for anything, other than for folks to read the transcript and draw their own conclusions. I find that to be a better course of action than reading through a bunch of links to old news from outlets that thrive on sensationalism.
What is it YOU are making a case for? (rhetorical question; your motives are pretty obvious)
Certainly your conclusions are your own, but they apparently aren't very useful since they apparently aren't informed by an understanding of how countries and heads of state conduct foreign policy.
Apparently you have no knowledge whatsoever of what informs my conclusions. Apparently.
Of course I am willing to be persuaded.
Uh huh. Apparently you're persuaded by the "journalists" at The Moscow Times. I think that's just adorable. .
LOL. So have you always considered The Moscow Times to be a reputable source, or is your trust in them something new?
I read the transcript and I am perfectly capable of reaching my own conclusions without relying on The Moscow Times.
NATO agreed to defend the Ukraine in agreement for the Ukraine disarming itself of nuclear weapons.
Nope. One, NATO was not a party to The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. Two, the BMSA doesn't require any of the parties to "defend" Ukraine militarily. Three, you might want to stop referring to Ukraine as "the Ukraine".
When one of the world's superpowers is threatening to make use of their nuclear arsenal, it is, most certainly, "stuff that matters".
When you read the quote in its full context (posted below), you'll find that Putin made no threat. This submission is simply cold fjord attempting to rouse the rabble. Unfortunately,
OK, I guess this "story" qualifies as "stuff that matters", but can we at least get something more than a smattering of links to stories that are yesterday's news? Putin made his comment 4 days ago, and damn near every think in the summary points to stories that are three days old (and contain more than their share of unsubstantiated speculation).
I'm not normally one to make "why is this on slashdot?" posts. But taking into account the predilections of the submitter, I gotta say this comes off as a troll submission.
That Act will go down in American history as the single, most damaging, assault on liberty in this country.
In the end, a treaty is just words on paper. Russia clearly isn't honoring the treaty so it goes to line 6:
The Budapest Memorandum is not a treaty. In any case, the US has met it's obligations under the agreement.
Ukraine disarmed itself in 2006 at our urging, with the understanding that we would come to their aid if ever it were needed.
The only "aid" that the US is obligated to provide Ukraine under the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is to seek UN Security Council action in the event that Ukraine is attacked (or threatened) with nuclear weapons.
The agreement is a one page document written in plain language. It's hard to imagine anyone who's read it would interpret it as you do.