bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) (04/07/90)
In article <411@sigma8.sm.luth.se>, d89-bfr@sm.luth.se (d89-bfr) writes: > Why is there such a law in the first place? > What's it good for? As far as I can see there can't be any purpose at > all, and it's only good for making trouble with international > relations. If something is believed to be safe enough to be public > inside the US, it IS safe enough to be public everywhere. If it's NOT > safe enough to be public everywhere it's NOT safe enough to be public > inside the US either. Can someone give me some arguments for having > such a law? Your fatal mistake is assuming that US law has some connection with logic :-). Don't worry, there's even worse - you haven't had to deal with the US tax code (my wife's comment about part of it: "But that doesn't make any _sense_!!!" my reply: "You're trying to apply logic to it"). A fair amount of junk laws get passed for no better reason than to make good copy for the press or issues to create with which to attack the legislator's opponents ("I voted to keep American secrets in this country and not let them get in the hands of our enemies" or "I voted to keep Government funds from being used to finance pornographic art" or whatever). And then there are the real howlers that get passed - like the legislators in Indiana that decided that they would simplify the lives of school students everywhere by mandating that the value of pi was henceforth to be set to 3, exactly. Really. There's no _point_ trying to understand laws like this. Bruce C. Wright
d89-bfr@sm.luth.se (d89-bfr) (04/09/90)
In article <3367@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >Hmmm. It didn't seem to stop the Allied Powers from holding the >Nuremburg Trials, even though the crimes against humanity weren't >violations of German law, or, for the most part, of the countries Oh. I'm awfully sorry. I had no idea that knowing things that are public in the US is a crime against humanity if you're outside the US. I'm really sorry :-) _ /Bjorn.
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (04/10/90)
In article <412@sigma3.sm.luth.se>, d89-bfr@sm.luth.se (d89-bfr) writes: > In article <3367@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > >Hmmm. It didn't seem to stop the Allied Powers from holding the > >Nuremburg Trials, even though the crimes against humanity weren't > >violations of German law, or, for the most part, of the countries > > Oh. I'm awfully sorry. I had no idea that knowing things that are > public in the US is a crime against humanity if you're outside the US. > I'm really sorry :-) > _ > /Bjorn. I didn't say they were -- just that there is plenty of precedent for nations enforcing their laws outside their own country. That doesn't make it right or wrong -- just the way it is. Note that I agree that the law in question is stupid and unenforceable. But then again, democracy nearly guarantees that stupid unenforceable laws will be passed. -- Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer Politicians prefer unarmed peasants. Ask the Lithuanians. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!