I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

To show my continued patriotism, I've ordered a Porche 911.

Finn - interesting - given that, in most of the west, we have moved from tribal loyalties to those of the nation state - and continue to attempt to stretch the boundaries - at what point do would you consider that nation-state loyalties would be/were superseded in survival value by the need to see one's primary loyalty to an entity greater than a nation state?

Craven wrote:

This legal system is more complicated than I had thought. Do these courts, prosecutors and "triers" have names? :wink:

How about the "People's World Court"? I'll be the prosecutor ... you be the defense counsel. We'll select our jury from the A2K members. We would need a judge to instruct the jury on what the law is, so I'm not sure who that would be. Perhaps we could recruit Judge Wapner, or Judge Judy?

Well, I suppose you could do a google search for common law conspiracy. It's not ipse dixit, but it's also not codified per se. Blackstone wrote about the English Common Law in his 4 volume treatise in the 18th century.

A conspiracy can be solely at the discretion of the murderer, and the key is in the acceptance of the offer. Here's why: It is essential for there to be a conspiracy for there to be an agreement. The key to the agreement, as I've already said, is the "offer." If the "offer" of Saddam can be construed to offer to pay a large sum of money to the relatives of suicide bombers if they kill themselves while blowing up Israelis, the agreement is formed when the suicide bomber accepts that offer - by blowing up an Israeli. Conspiracy only requires an agreement, not a completion of the agreement. However, in this case the acceptance of the offer is likely only conveyed through their performance. Only upon performance is there an acceptance ... thus without blowing themselves up, there would be no agreement, unless there is some other form of acceptance, of which I'm not aware and am not arguing.

This is akin to the following scenario: Let's suppose I were to offer to pay you $10,000 to kill my wife, and you said you'd think about it. You have not formed an agreement with me yet, because you have not accepted my offer. (Note: if you had said, "okay, I'll do it," that would be a sufficient acceptance, and you could be charged with conspiracy.) If you never kill my wife, you never accept my offer, and there is not agreement, and thus no conspiracy. If you kill my wife the next day, you have accepted my offer through your performance, and there is an agreement, and thus sufficient facts to substantiate the charge of conspiracy.

Thus, you see it is erroneous to state that a conspiracy cannot be solely at the discretion of the murderer.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of "Common Law". In the passage following the above exerpt you confuse common law vs. civil law and common law (non-statutory law) vs. statutory law.

You are confusing some legal principles. While it's true that conspiracy in some legal systems does not require more than one person those are cases in which only one person is guilty as well (you don't get two for one here).

It is also true that conspiracy alone can be a crime without any further act.

But it is not true that a conspiracy between two people can exist at the sole discretion of one individual (which is also not what you are arguing, as you argue that an "offer" was made).

You can't demonstrate the existence of any such offer or agreement, which is what it all would ultimately come down to.

Note: I'll likely only rejoin this "court" if you have evidence of such an offer to discuss.

16 Am Jur 2d CONSPIRACY § 2

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition
Copyright 2004 West Group

Joseph J. Bassano, J.D.

Conspiracy
I. Criminal Liability [§§ 1-49]
A. In General [§§ 1-9]

16 Am Jur 2d CONSPIRACY § 2

§ 2 Definitions and distinctions

A criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to accomplish together a criminal or an unlawful act,7 or to achieve by criminal or unlawful means an act not in itself criminal or unlawful,8 accompanied by an overt act in furtherance of the agreement9 (in those jurisdictions which require an overt act).10

Thus, while the provisions of some statutes define the crime of conspiracy as involving an agreement directed to an unlawful act or object but not necessarily a criminal act or object11 other statutes require that the conspiratorial objective must be the commission of a crime12 and under those statutes a conspiracy conviction cannot be sustained by objectives that are merely unlawful, malicious, oppressive, or injurious, as distinct from criminal.13

In any case, a conspiracy in a legal sense does not exist where both the object of the agreement and the means contemplated for its achievement are lawful.14

Notwithstanding the fact that the definition of a conspiracy as an agreement between two or more persons to accomplish a criminal or unlawful act or to achieve by criminal or unlawful means an act not in itself criminal or unlawful is also applicable to a civil conspiracy,15 the two differ, in that the gist of the tort of conspiracy is damage resulting to the plaintiff from an overt act or acts done pursuant to the conspiracy,16 while the gist or essence of the crime of conspiracy is the agreement to commit an unlawful act.17 It has also been said that the gist of the offense of conspiracy is the unlawful combination resulting from the agreement, rather than the mere agreement itself.18

<sigh>

I do not "misunderstand the meaning of "Common Law." In fact, I'm pretty sure I know what the hell I'm talking about. I have a piece of paper hanging on my wall that tells me so. Plus, I'd like to think I didn't sit through 3 years of law school for nothing.

When's the last time you prosecuted someone for a violation of the law? The last time I did was Monday.

I assure you the only one between you and I that is confused about the legal principles we're discussing, is you.

I have never stated that I think conspiracy requires only one person. In fact, I have very clearly stated that it requires an "agreement" between two or more persons.

But it is not true that a conspiracy between two people can exist at the sole discretion of one individual (which is also not what you are arguing, as you argue that an "offer" was made).

Conspiracy requires two persons.

You are absolutely incorrect to claim a conspiracy cannot be formed at the sole discretion of one individual.

As I've said numerous times now, the key to my argument is the ability to prove the nature of the offer made by Saddam. I recognize that as the weakest point of my argument. Whether it would stand up in "court" or not I can't say for sure, as I don't have all of the evidence at my disposal. But I'm pretty sure I could lay out a pretty good case for the jury.

dlowan wrote:

Finn - interesting - given that, in most of the west, we have moved from tribal loyalties to those of the nation state ...

When you look at Euroep, for instance, you'll notice that we indeed go back towards more 'tribalism' = regionalism.

And when you look around - I think, this is going on elsewhere, too (e.g. the Kurds in Iraq, the Tamiles in Sri Lanks etc).

dlowan wrote:

Finn - interesting - given that, in most of the west, we have moved from tribal loyalties to those of the nation state - and continue to attempt to stretch the boundaries - at what point do would you consider that nation-state loyalties would be/were superseded in survival value by the need to see one's primary loyalty to an entity greater than a nation state?

What supra-national entities do you have in mind? Are they real or just imagined? Is it God or the UN you to which you refer here? I don't think your question can be answered without this.

Certainly I would never transfer my loyalties to the UN - compared to my own "nation state" its values, structures and overall state of political development are far too primitive for me to consider it a beneficial replacement in any matter. Perhaps if I lived in Zimbabwe, I might give the matter some thought, but even there I would consider leaving and seeking a different "nation state" a far better alternative. I see the UN as what it is - a voluntary association of sovereign states for specific purposes. It has no potential whatever to evolve into a body that I would acept for real governance. Perhaps in another age in which the state of political and economic develoment in the world is more uniform this might be possible, but that is very far from the case now.

Interestingly the United States is not something that evolved from tribes (as in your metaphor). It was the creation of people who fled their "nation states" in search of a better (at least in their eyes) alternative.

dlowan your history is never ever shaky!!

swallowed by the cracks wrote:

dlowan your history is never ever shaky!!

Lol - my history is extremely shaky.

dlowan wrote:

swallowed by the cracks wrote:

dlowan your history is never ever shaky!!

Lol - my history is extremely shaky.

My research into your history suggests rather that the men in it have been left shaky.

I had intended to post that Finn's notion of abandoning the tribe might be inaccurate for those who simply see a larger tribe.

Actually, I have never had a Fred or, goddess help us, a "Biff". Isn't he the son in "Death of a Salesman"?

You are thinking of some other goddamn Wabbit.

Apparently not. Email just received, from one Fred Dungaree, Roo Hollow:

"Oi'w tell ya, mate, she's roit aboat that. That's the flippin thing, eh. Oi mean, luke, there's twenny of us 'ere in The Holla, eh. Whad am Oi? Bloody chopped liva!?

Can someone tell me what Napoleons role in France was.