Announcement

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 24, 2005, 18:06

Beyond even that, the point of an executive is to enforce the law, hence even if he did not write it, he is in charge of carrying it out-hence he is part of the system. The EU or any EU member has every right to say its citizens can't be executives in a state that carries out a practice they have banned.

And that's why people are correct in saying it smacks of politics. Because it does. They want to make another 'statement' about the death penalty and right wingers who may back the death penalty.

Oerdin was correct, have to took away citizenship from those who committed murder in another state?

It's all politics.

**GePap** · January 24, 2005, 18:11

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And that's why people are correct in saying it smacks of politics. Because it does. They want to make another 'statement' about the death penalty and right wingers who may back the death penalty.

Oerdin was correct, have to took away citizenship from those who committed murder in another state?

It's all politics.

Its politics to complain about their action as well, your point??

All laws are politics put into regulations- banning drugs is politics as well- a state can do as it pleases with its rules of citizenship- if Austria want to make it impossible for its citizens to become the chief executives of state that have a practice the EU has denounced , that is as much politics as any other rule regarding citizenship.

So I return to, who cares? I am surprised, as was said before, than he is still an Austrian citizen anyways- you would think it would have been revoked simply when he stopped being just a private citizen and became a public official of a foreign state.

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 24, 2005, 18:15

Its politics to complain about their action as well, your point??

No, not really. It's not all politics to complain about a political decision clothed in natural law language.

**Atahualpa** · January 24, 2005, 18:17

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Besides, what could a Dutch official of US citizenship DO that would break the law of the US?

And what has Arnold done that has broken the law of Austria or the EU? He did not preside over an execution in the EU. And simply being a citizen does not mean he is subject to the law of Austria when not there, or else the US could prosecute citizens for using illegal drugs in states that allow them.

Well the US can prosecute you for using illegal drugs in states that allow them. Even if you are in a foreign country, you mustnt violate the laws of your home country.
Ofc, in reality this hardly happens and only applies to such laws which involves don'ts concerning an individual.

If e.g. prostitution (the execution of the business) was illegal in the states, you can still go to prostitutes in other states, where it's legal. But if "going to prostitutes" was illegal, you could not (legally).

I am pretty sure you can be tried in your home country when you for example had sex with minors in a third world country.
IIRC there was such a case with a german once.

**GePap** · January 24, 2005, 18:17

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Its politics to complain about their action as well, your point??

No, not really. It's not all politics to complain about a political decision clothed in natural law language.

All laws are political to begin with, hence everything being said here is stuck in the realm of politics - for anyone then use political as a pejorative term is nonsense while speaking about this issue.

Do you dispute the ability of a state to prevent its citizens to become public officials of a foreign state, speically a foreign state with laws incompatible with your own?

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 24, 2005, 18:22

for anyone then use political as a pejorative term is nonsense while speaking about this issue.

No, it isn't. Using 'politics' as a pejorative term is very apt here. The Green Party minister is displaying outrage over Arnie's allowing of an execution, talking about how this brings disrespect to Austria. It's ALL bull****, because it's ALL playing politics. "Politics' as pejorative fits here.

**GePap** · January 24, 2005, 18:26

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

No, it isn't. Using 'politics' as a pejorative term is very apt here. The Green Party minister is displaying outrage over Arnie's allowing of an execution, talking about how this brings disrespect to Austria. It's ALL bull****, because it's ALL playing politics. "Politics' as pejorative fits here.

Wow, you get half of it anyways.

Yes, a green party minster is outraged, and he thinks this should be the law- how is that different from person is outraged by X because of their beliefs, hence demands Y be the law?
Please explain the difference.

**techumseh** · January 24, 2005, 18:28

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

for anyone then use political as a pejorative term is nonsense while speaking about this issue.

No, it isn't. Using 'politics' as a pejorative term is very apt here. The Green Party minister is displaying outrage over Arnie's allowing of an execution, talking about how this brings disrespect to Austria. It's ALL bull****, because it's ALL playing politics. "Politics' as pejorative fits here.

Corporations that don't advertise, don't move product. Politicians that don't get coverage, don't get re-elected. The Green leaders tactics are no tackier than many furniture TV ads. "Political" is no more pejorative a term than "commercial".

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 24, 2005, 18:29

Yes, a green party minster is outraged, and he thinks this should be the law- how is that different from person is outraged by X because of their beliefs, hence demands Y be the law?

Because the other person is probably ACTUALLY outraged! This Green Party minister isn't outraged. He's just playing politics, by displaying outrage and not meaning it.

**GePap** · January 24, 2005, 18:33

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Because the other person is probably ACTUALLY outraged! This Green Party minister isn't outraged. He's just playing politics, by displaying outrage and not meaning it.

Oh, you are a mind reader!? Good to know, tell us great Karnak, what does Ahnold think as well? Maybe with your great mental powers you should wear a cape and go fight crime!

So here we get to the point, you are speaking out of your ass, making baseless insinuations about this guy's motives because at the end, you simply disagree politically with him, and thus use this as your arguement.

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 24, 2005, 18:36

So here we get to the point, you are speaking out of your ass, making baseless insinuations about this guy's motives because at the end, you simply disagree politically with him, and thus use this as your arguement.

Read the article. The Greens have been trying to rename Swartzenegger Stadium for a while now because of his support for capital punishment. So now, this Greenie is so outraged that Arnold didn't pardon someone that he wants to revoke his citizenship.

It's called 'reading between the lines'. I suggest you start to learn it, if that isn't too difficult for you to comprehend.

**GePap** · January 24, 2005, 18:41

Or maybe, their outrage is real, hence why they have been trying to rename Schwartzenegger stadium for so long, and this just adds to their outrage.

Its called not making assumptions, maybe you should stop reading between the lines, because most of the time, there isn't anything there. And the only way you can even read between the lines correctly would be to have a good understanding of actual or possible values and aims.

In the end, you have no clue, and if your entire arguement is "I read between the lines", well, that's a piss poor arguement, now isn't it?

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 24, 2005, 18:46

Or maybe, their outrage is real, hence why they have been trying to rename Schwartzenegger stadium for so long, and this just adds to their outrage.

Yeah, because there was no one on death row when Arnold became Governor? And he had no power of pardon either? According to EU law, the conditions of death row are ALSO illegal as inhuman treatment. It is considered just as bad as the death penalty is today (The Soering case). Where was this guy then? Oh wait, that isn't as 'sexy' as this possibility.

if your entire arguement is "I read between the lines", well, that's a piss poor arguement, now isn't it?

No, it's called being perceptive and not being utterly naive and taking everything at face value.

**GePap** · January 24, 2005, 18:57

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Yeah, because there was no one on death row when Arnold became Governor? And he had no power of pardon either? According to EU law, the conditions of death row are ALSO illegal as inhuman treatment. It is considered just as bad as the death penalty is today (The Soering case). Where was this guy then? Oh wait, that isn't as 'sexy' as this possibility.

So? You realize none of your points has diddly to do with you basic assumption that the outrage is faked? Wow, so they took a more public moment, when this is in the consciousness more, to speak..wow, its called working in the real world.

No, it's called being perceptive and not being utterly naive and taking everything at face value.

No, its called masking your own political arguement with cynicism.

And in the end you have not answered the questions I posed anyways:

Does Austria have or have not the power to remove the citizenship of someone who becomes a public official in a foreign government with policies found to be barbaric by Austria?

**Dr Strangelove** · January 24, 2005, 19:02

IIRC when a persion takes the oath of citizenship he renounces all foreign allegiances, so technically Arnold had already renounced his Austrian citizenship. I believe it takes an act of Congress in order for a naturalized American to have true dual citizenship.

Announcement

Arnie's Austrian citizenship to be terminated?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment