Monsanto on trial for crimes against humanity by government mob
Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 4 months ago to Business
While I would applaud a fair trial and restitution if guilty, my life experience leads me to believe that this is more llkely extortion by the world government mob that will not benefit anyone harmed by Monsanto. The 'world court' will fine Monsanto millions and those damaged will never see a penny.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Did you know that after about 20 generations' use, acetylsalicilic acid causes permanent and 100% sterility among all users' offsping?
Trying to prove those kinds of 'unsafe" should be illegal... :)
I often recall this when I hear Agent Orange:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKtjB...
When a writer with no credentials (that I could determine online) in the area being discussed, calls anyone opposed to her beliefs a "conspiracy theorist" it gives me reason to doubt the writer's veracity, just as I doubted the veracity of the people critical of GMO's without scientific evidence.
Mud slinging on both sides is not science. It's just obfuscation.
too much finger pointing and talk, Not enough truth and not near enough action from the usual couch potato groupies.
Baseline
Normally, the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured is the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal state. This is either the low-water mark closest to the shore, or alternatively it may be an unlimited distance from permanently exposed land, provided that some portion of elevations exposed at low tide but covered at high tide (like mud flats) is within 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) of permanently exposed land. ...
Territorial sea
A state's territorial sea extends up to 12 nautical miles (22.2 km; 13.8 mi) from its baseline. If this would overlap with another state's territorial sea, the border is taken as the median point between the states' baselines, unless the states in question agree otherwise. A state can also choose to claim a smaller territorial sea.
In December 1988 the USA extended the 3nm to 12 nm by Presidential Proclamation.
Contiguous zone
The contiguous zone is a band of water extending from the outer edge of the territorial sea to up to 24 nautical miles (44.4 km; 27.6 mi) from the baseline, within which a state can exert limited control for the purpose of preventing or punishing "infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea". This will typically be 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) wide, but could be more (if a state has chosen to claim a territorial sea of less than 12 nautical miles), or less, if it would otherwise overlap another state's contiguous zone. However, unlike the territorial sea, there is no standard rule for resolving such conflicts and the states in question must negotiate their own compromise.
"The United States invoked a contiguous zone out to 24 nmi on 24 September 1999]"
As mentioned the Self Help Rule was ruled legal by the US Supreme Court of the United States ...you should have read a little further. Recently the US used a hired force to extract a Mexican Citizen from Mexico (which led to that SCOTUS ruling and the Nation of New Zealand used a quasi force actually led by one of their counter Terrorist section national police officers who brought the French Citizen of the ship that sank the Rainbow Warrior in NZ Territorial Waters back to New Zealand to stand trial.
The World Court as you stated is a joke unless you are caught in a sovereign State or Nation which has agreed to enforce it. What is not a joke is crimes as listed by another nation within the claimed area of another nation. In any case two things you can count on. US normally via the Coast Guard will enforce US Law on US Flag vessels including my 30' sloop where ever and US State Department will do not much if anything if you violate foreign law in a foreign country. That included a minor who received a sentence of bamboo lashing in Singapore.
A third rule is no search warrant is required for boarding a US Flagged Vessel by Coast Guard, Customs, Immigration or Border Patrol.
Something those of us who live aboard on a full time basis just....live with. That same rule now applies to anyone or any structure within 100 miles of any shoreline or land border.
getting back to the question under discussion there is much hyperbole and bombast on both sides much of it knee jerk in character and a limited amount of acceptable 'fact' on both side so nations have it seems invoked their own interpretation which is their sovereign right. What the World Court has to do with it - is....not much. They have even less divisions that did the Vatican in WWII.
What is also true is the issue stems back to the DDT Scare fomented by Carson in 'The Silent Spring.' which led to the deaths of millions as the ban was not accompanied by a replacement product for a number of years. Possible death by DDT became certain death by starvation and spread of disease because no one least of all Ms. Carlson bothered to 'think it through.' for some that is a good thing otherwise the world population might have been 12 billion or whatever excuse they are offering. Still Ms. Carlson and her supporters certainly, without question became the greatest mass murderers the world has yet witnessed.
Especially since we now find out DDT was not the danger it was made out to be. Estimates of deaths because of the DDT Ban have now reached as high as an estimated ESTIMATED 90 million while....the Locusts Laughed.
On the other hand, "prov[ing] that their products aren't unsafe" really isn't possible. There can always be a longer timeframe than tested, etc.
The "self help" rule is not so much a rule as a case of "Who's gonna make us stop?" I guarantee as soon as some other country kidnaps a person (without US government permission) from within the US and puts him on trial, they'll find out (maybe from a war) that the rule doesn't work that way. Of course that doesn't apply in this case. Any country in which a company operates can seize the persons and assets that are within its borders.
The World Court, of course, is a joke. Like the UN as a whole it only has the ability to enforce anything if the Security Council agrees, and the US has a veto there. I'm sure right now Monsanto is trying to delay any action until the US has a president who will veto it.
"a glorified meeting of the who’s who of anti-biotech science deniers"
As you say, the articles sounds biased, but I think it's correct that modern biological science does not find evidence of risks of GMOs.
When she explains why she imagines people buy organic, she's bordering on a straw man. She says it's because of fear of GMOs but doesn't have any evidence.
I really appreciate the article in that explains in a sober-minded way that it is not a real trial in a court of law but rather a convention to discuss the topic.
The whole article is good, but I found one quote here, from a man at the conference, that really summarizes the root of their hatred.
"You are trying to poison us all, you know, in order to pursue maximizing your profits.”
The author quickly dismembers that argument. I'm very much on Monsanto's side, not just as a biologist but as a person too.
However, if it's ever made a crime to "hurt" the ecology, then anyone can be jailed, even a farmer, and certainly miners, fishers, loggers, factory owners, etc.
"You can't get me;;; why are you trying?" . like thumbing
your nose at the judge -- like "I do not recognize your
jurisdiction over me." -- j
.
Now they have become "populist" in their outlook and are "forgetting" their involvement in creating this genre of food stock! What's worse, there has been absolutely no evidence of harm to man, animal or the environment to date! Yet there go the "doomsayers" who wish to have the world go backwards as opposed to going forward to meet the many challenges ahead!
Load more comments...