We'd be like Canada and Australia. In terrible danger, I guess.
"Neither Canada nor Australia are a globally relevant defence power."
Why the f*ck did we get Nuclear weapons in the first place ! Great idea that was...
Because we couldn't trust the Americans, and feared the Soviets.
It seems to have slung an expensive albatross around our necks though !
When states like Pakistan and North Korea have the weapons, not to mention Russia, it's sensible for us to do so too.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see either Qatar or Saudi Arabia secretly acquire the bomb and neither are to be trusted.
Qatar has about 250,000 citizens and no nuclear power plants. It's also not a very big place. Building a nuclear facility without anybody noticing would be tricky.
Saudi Arabia - on the other hand - which has a nasty repressive government, funds Wahabbi groups around the world, has tens of millions of citizens, and has tonnes of space, would be both much more likely and much more serious.
A Saudi bomb becomes ever more likely if they doubt the seriousness of international commitment to effectively monitoring/dissuading Iran from the same. (Iran have their own problems, including - as they would see it - deterring any threat of American or Israeli aggression, and the fact they border nuclear-armed Pakistan and not so long ago came close to a "hot" war against them. Iran is therefore strongly motivated to continue to pursue the bomb regardless of the relationship with Saudi Arabia. For the Saudis, an Iranian bomb is a red line.)
Would be interesting to know TimT's views as he is probably the most expert commentator on here.
I think I'm right in saying that the only country to have developed nuclear weapons not in response to the threat of an enemy possessing them, is South Africa. It's also the only country to have unilaterally disarmed (if we exclude ex-Soviet states other than Russia). The chain-reaction of proliferation is very difficult to prevent when countries feel their existence at risk and alliances with a nuclear power unreliable.
This might enrage Mr Llama but why don't we look at a nuclear deterrent delivered via the RAF.
We just don't have the air capability for second strike response that Trident gives us. Having a continuous deterrent is one of the few advantages of Trident. Keeping planes in the air safe from being attacked isn't easy and having them on the ground doesn't give us the ability to strike back since they can be destroyed.
And the RAF don't have any aircraft capable of carrying bomb loads the distances required. Developing such would waste billions, probably more than new submarines if the MoD's record is anything to go by.
Yes, we would need to buy into the US B2 replacement programme or develop our own intercontinental nuclear bomber. Neither would be very cheap.
We could, of course, implant today a bunch of nuclear warheads in secret concrete coffins in the desired target list - to be detonated by encoded email instruction. Mwaaaahahahaha. Only joking. Bit a lot cheaper and more effective than building our own B2.
There's a couple of points here that are really important:
1. Corporate debt has increased, but net debt has largely declined. Why? Because companies are running with higher gross cash balances to lower refinancing risk.
2. The creation of bad banks creates double counting.
3. Bank debt has fallen quite sharply in the last eight years, even though nominal GDP has rise.
On the previous point of a non-CASD, looking at an air delivery system. Not only would we have to negotiate with the Americans for a new type of missile, we would also have to buy their planes. The cost would be higher and it would be even less independent than what we have now.
Obviously a truly independent programme would be very costly and we just don't have the infrastructure for nuclear weapons development in the UK, but moving to an air deterrent would be prohibitively costly and would require opening up the Polaris agreement, which is not something we should be doing with a hostile POTUS like Obama in office.
Sorry for braking one of the newest PB tradition and not live commenting on the GOP last night, unfortunately you're not allowed the luxury when you have a severe case of gastroenteritis.
I think I'm right in saying that the only country to have developed nuclear weapons not in response to the threat of an enemy possessing them, is South Africa. It's also the only country to have unilaterally disarmed (if we exclude ex-Soviet states other than Russia). The chain-reaction of proliferation is very difficult to prevent when countries feel their existence at risk and alliances with a nuclear power unreliable.
Two points on this general discussion:
*) One of those two ex-Soviet states that got rid of their nukes was Ukraine. That ended well for them, didn't it? The Budapest Memorandum - and the west's craven inability to uphold what they signed - has set back non-proliferation for years.
*) There have been lots of allegations of cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan with the latter's nuclear weapons program, including of deals whereby Saudi would receive Pakistani nukes.
We'd be like Canada and Australia. In terrible danger, I guess.
"Neither Canada nor Australia are a globally relevant defence power."
Why the f*ck did we get Nuclear weapons in the first place ! Great idea that was...
Because we couldn't trust the Americans, and feared the Soviets.
It seems to have slung an expensive albatross around our necks though !
When states like Pakistan and North Korea have the weapons, not to mention Russia, it's sensible for us to do so too.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see either Qatar or Saudi Arabia secretly acquire the bomb and neither are to be trusted.
Qatar has about 250,000 citizens and no nuclear power plants. It's also not a very big place. Building a nuclear facility without anybody noticing would be tricky.
Saudi Arabia - on the other hand - which has a nasty repressive government, funds Wahabbi groups around the world, has tens of millions of citizens, and has tonnes of space, would be both much more likely and much more serious.
Which is why I said acquire rather than develop. Though you are correct that Saudi Arabia pose a much bigger threat than Qatar. If Iran does end up developing the bomb then who knows what happens in the region. The Americans might even be stupid enough to sanction a Saudi weapons programme to oppose Iran.
The Saudis bankrolled the Pakistani nuclear weapons program, of course with the condition of access to their nuclear weapons arsenal. So the Saudis already have access to nukes, for a price.
Sorry for braking one of the newest PB tradition and not live commenting on the GOP last night, unfortunately you're not allowed the luxury when you have a severe case of gastroenteritis.
Sorry for braking one of the newest PB tradition and not live commenting on the GOP last night, unfortunately you're not allowed the luxury when you have a severe case of gastroenteritis.
Damn !
Seems like the Trump juggernaut rolls on anyway.
I'll be the judge on that (along with Iowa voters), off to watch the debate on youtube and see how they all did.
There's a couple of points here that are really important:
1. Corporate debt has increased, but net debt has largely declined. Why? Because companies are running with higher gross cash balances to lower refinancing risk.
2. The creation of bad banks creates double counting.
3. Bank debt has fallen quite sharply in the last eight years, even though nominal GDP has rise.
My 12 year old correctly anticipated that the release of the team of the year on FIFA16 would oversupply the market with an adverse impact on prices given the quantity of money in the game is relatively fixed, liquidated his team, called the bottom of the market correctly on Tuesday and bought the same squad back with over £1.5m profit in just over a week.
Am I wasting my time working? I increasingly feel so.
There's a couple of points here that are really important:
1. Corporate debt has increased, but net debt has largely declined. Why? Because companies are running with higher gross cash balances to lower refinancing risk.
2. The creation of bad banks creates double counting.
3. Bank debt has fallen quite sharply in the last eight years, even though nominal GDP has rise.
My 12 year old correctly anticipated that the release of the team of the year on FIFA16 would oversupply the market with an adverse impact on prices given the quantity of money in the game is relatively fixed, liquidated his team, called the bottom of the market correctly on Tuesday and bought the same squad back with over £1.5m profit in just over a week.
Am I wasting my time working? I increasingly feel so.
Does he have any advice on this current stock market?
There's a couple of points here that are really important:
1. Corporate debt has increased, but net debt has largely declined. Why? Because companies are running with higher gross cash balances to lower refinancing risk.
2. The creation of bad banks creates double counting.
3. Bank debt has fallen quite sharply in the last eight years, even though nominal GDP has rise.
My 12 year old correctly anticipated that the release of the team of the year on FIFA16 would oversupply the market with an adverse impact on prices given the quantity of money in the game is relatively fixed, liquidated his team, called the bottom of the market correctly on Tuesday and bought the same squad back with over £1.5m profit in just over a week.
Am I wasting my time working? I increasingly feel so.
Does he have any advice on this current stock market?
I am seriously tempted to get him working on it. He has the considerable advantage of not yet having had any classes in economics yet.
There's a couple of points here that are really important:
1. Corporate debt has increased, but net debt has largely declined. Why? Because companies are running with higher gross cash balances to lower refinancing risk.
2. The creation of bad banks creates double counting.
3. Bank debt has fallen quite sharply in the last eight years, even though nominal GDP has rise.
My 12 year old correctly anticipated that the release of the team of the year on FIFA16 would oversupply the market with an adverse impact on prices given the quantity of money in the game is relatively fixed, liquidated his team, called the bottom of the market correctly on Tuesday and bought the same squad back with over £1.5m profit in just over a week.
Am I wasting my time working? I increasingly feel so.
There's a couple of points here that are really important:
1. Corporate debt has increased, but net debt has largely declined. Why? Because companies are running with higher gross cash balances to lower refinancing risk.
2. The creation of bad banks creates double counting.
3. Bank debt has fallen quite sharply in the last eight years, even though nominal GDP has rise.
My 12 year old correctly anticipated that the release of the team of the year on FIFA16 would oversupply the market with an adverse impact on prices given the quantity of money in the game is relatively fixed, liquidated his team, called the bottom of the market correctly on Tuesday and bought the same squad back with over £1.5m profit in just over a week.
Am I wasting my time working? I increasingly feel so.
It's a shame it's not real money!
If it was I think I would be watching the next 3 days of the Test in SA.
Would it be fair to say that Donald Trump - in marked contrast to other 'outsider' and some 'insider' candidates both in the current contest and in previous contests - has actually got better and better in successive debates?
@MichaelLCrick: Livingstone says Thornberry can run Lab defence review solo, as they agree on Trident. Lab source says Ken never ran defence review anyway
@MichaelLCrick: Livingstone says Thornberry can run Lab defence review solo, as they agree on Trident. Lab source says Ken never ran defence review anyway
Labour HQ pedantry - Livingstone was appointed co-chair of Labour's defence review.
Would it be fair to say that Donald Trump - in marked contrast to other 'outsider' and some 'insider' candidates both in the current contest and in previous contests - has actually got better and better in successive debates?
The BBC summary seemed to think so, at least that he had improved as a debater, and given I doubt they are a fan of his, I presume it must be so.
Haven't read the thread yet, but wanted to comment on this quickly:
Emily Thornberry ... tells a great story ... At a hustings she told the gobsmacked Major Brazier “I outrank you, you know”.
That's not a great story.
That's arrogant and unpleasant. And thoroughly disrespectful of someone, whether you agree with him or not, served our country.
I have never come across anyone, and I mean anyone, who has tried to pull rank on that basis.
What a nasty, petty person she must be
Depending on how it was delivered I can see it being an amusing thing to say, so long as one was clear that obviously honorary rank was not really equivalent to actual rank and service.
Haven't read the thread yet, but wanted to comment on this quickly:
Emily Thornberry ... tells a great story ... At a hustings she told the gobsmacked Major Brazier “I outrank you, you know”.
That's not a great story.
That's arrogant and unpleasant. And thoroughly disrespectful of someone, whether you agree with him or not, served our country.
I have never come across anyone, and I mean anyone, who has tried to pull rank on that basis.
What a nasty, petty person she must be
Depending on how it was delivered I can see it being an amusing thing to say, so long as one was clear that obviously honorary rank was not really equivalent to actual rank and service.
Even as a joke it strikes me as pompous and arrogant.
Haven't read the thread yet, but wanted to comment on this quickly:
Emily Thornberry ... tells a great story ... At a hustings she told the gobsmacked Major Brazier “I outrank you, you know”.
That's not a great story.
That's arrogant and unpleasant. And thoroughly disrespectful of someone, whether you agree with him or not, served our country.
I have never come across anyone, and I mean anyone, who has tried to pull rank on that basis.
What a nasty, petty person she must be
Depending on how it was delivered I can see it being an amusing thing to say, so long as one was clear that obviously honorary rank was not really equivalent to actual rank and service.
I think we know enough about Thornberry to make a judgement that while she probably wasn't being serious she was trying to belittle the opponent's military career.
Haven't read the thread yet, but wanted to comment on this quickly:
Emily Thornberry ... tells a great story ... At a hustings she told the gobsmacked Major Brazier “I outrank you, you know”.
That's not a great story.
That's arrogant and unpleasant. And thoroughly disrespectful of someone, whether you agree with him or not, served our country.
I have never come across anyone, and I mean anyone, who has tried to pull rank on that basis.
What a nasty, petty person she must be
You could do it on the basis of "do you realise how ridiculous it is" and with a degree of humility. Whether that was how Thornberry did it is only something that those there can know.
This might enrage Mr Llama but why don't we look at a nuclear deterrent delivered via the RAF.
We just don't have the air capability for second strike response that Trident gives us. Having a continuous deterrent is one of the few advantages of Trident. Keeping planes in the air safe from being attacked isn't easy and having them on the ground doesn't give us the ability to strike back since they can be destroyed.
And the RAF don't have any aircraft capable of carrying bomb loads the distances required. Developing such would waste billions, probably more than new submarines if the MoD's record is anything to go by.
Yes, we would need to buy into the US B2 replacement programme or develop our own intercontinental nuclear bomber. Neither would be very cheap.
We could, of course, implant today a bunch of nuclear warheads in secret concrete coffins in the desired target list - to be detonated by encoded email instruction. Mwaaaahahahaha. Only joking. Bit a lot cheaper and more effective than building our own B2.
Embassies, diplomatic bags? Or is that cheating - and what if it gets hacked?
Would it be fair to say that Donald Trump - in marked contrast to other 'outsider' and some 'insider' candidates both in the current contest and in previous contests - has actually got better and better in successive debates?
Haven't read the thread yet, but wanted to comment on this quickly:
Emily Thornberry ... tells a great story ... At a hustings she told the gobsmacked Major Brazier “I outrank you, you know”.
That's not a great story.
That's arrogant and unpleasant. And thoroughly disrespectful of someone, whether you agree with him or not, served our country.
I have never come across anyone, and I mean anyone, who has tried to pull rank on that basis.
What a nasty, petty person she must be
Depending on how it was delivered I can see it being an amusing thing to say, so long as one was clear that obviously honorary rank was not really equivalent to actual rank and service.
Even as a joke it strikes me as pompous and arrogant.
Well, yes. Doesn't mean it couldn't be funny, if delivered right, even then.It's not beyond the pale, as a joke. But she may not have the charisma to pull it off (never met her of course, but she's a politician not a comedian of course, so I doubt she does)
I feel Donald Brind's pain. I don't think Jeremy Corbyn can sack anyone else in the short term. Ken Livingstone's retrospective non-involvement is as much as can practically be done now.
Given that she and Ken apparently agree on everything his involvement is an unnecessary and pointless aggravation that isn't going to change anything.
I know Labour is in a very sad place but the idea that Des Browne is "more credible" than those currently holding the shadow post, even if it is true is deeply depressing.
In Scotland we have seen what happens when one of the natural governing parties self-destructs and leaves a government with no effective opposition. It is not pretty and does not lead to good governance. The temptation to simply laugh at the depth of the hole that Corbyn is still frantically digging should be resisted. It is not good for the country.
David, you seriously think the UK is any different to Scotland, it is indeed worse and equivalent to having a fox in a chicken coop. In my opinion the UK position is much worse, at least the SNP lean to the centre.
Haven't read the thread yet, but wanted to comment on this quickly:
Emily Thornberry ... tells a great story ... At a hustings she told the gobsmacked Major Brazier “I outrank you, you know”.
That's not a great story.
That's arrogant and unpleasant. And thoroughly disrespectful of someone, whether you agree with him or not, served our country.
I have never come across anyone, and I mean anyone, who has tried to pull rank on that basis.
What a nasty, petty person she must be
Depending on how it was delivered I can see it being an amusing thing to say, so long as one was clear that obviously honorary rank was not really equivalent to actual rank and service.
I think we know enough about Thornberry to make a judgement that while she probably wasn't being serious she was trying to belittle the opponent's military career.
I feel Donald Brind's pain. I don't think Jeremy Corbyn can sack anyone else in the short term. Ken Livingstone's retrospective non-involvement is as much as can practically be done now.
Given that she and Ken apparently agree on everything his involvement is an unnecessary and pointless aggravation that isn't going to change anything.
I know Labour is in a very sad place but the idea that Des Browne is "more credible" than those currently holding the shadow post, even if it is true is deeply depressing.
In Scotland we have seen what happens when one of the natural governing parties self-destructs and leaves a government with no effective opposition. It is not pretty and does not lead to good governance. The temptation to simply laugh at the depth of the hole that Corbyn is still frantically digging should be resisted. It is not good for the country.
David, you seriously think the UK is any different to Scotland, it is indeed worse and equivalent to having a fox in a chicken coop. In my opinion the UK position is much worse, at least the SNP lean to the centre.
No I think the problem is the same in both countries. Neither administration has any effective opposition and it doesn't do either of them any favours.
Sorry for braking one of the newest PB tradition and not live commenting on the GOP last night, unfortunately you're not allowed the luxury when you have a severe case of gastroenteritis.
There are so many jokes that could lead me to make.
But I will restrain myself out of common decency (and the fact I am cooking breakfast)
Haven't read the thread yet, but wanted to comment on this quickly:
Emily Thornberry ... tells a great story ... At a hustings she told the gobsmacked Major Brazier “I outrank you, you know”.
That's not a great story.
That's arrogant and unpleasant. And thoroughly disrespectful of someone, whether you agree with him or not, served our country.
I have never come across anyone, and I mean anyone, who has tried to pull rank on that basis.
What a nasty, petty person she must be
Depending on how it was delivered I can see it being an amusing thing to say, so long as one was clear that obviously honorary rank was not really equivalent to actual rank and service.
If he was "gobsmacked" as Don claims then it clearly wasn't delivered (or not delivered effectively) as a joke.
@MichaelLCrick: Livingstone says Thornberry can run Lab defence review solo, as they agree on Trident. Lab source says Ken never ran defence review anyway
"Actually, there may be some value in the Beckett report after all. It could be retained, but with the date on the front cover amended to 8 May, 2020. Then when Labour loses again, it can simply be reissued with a minimum of fuss.
In fact, “Why Labour Lost” could become a regular publication. Awaited with the same anticipation in the political world as a publication like Wisden, or the new edition of the Oxford English dictionary. “So what’s your favourite edition of “Why Labour Lost”?”. “Hard one. Have to say, I have a special fondness for the bound, Lisa Nandy, 2025 version."
We know why Labour lost. Labour lost because that’s just what Labour does these days."
Haven't read the thread yet, but wanted to comment on this quickly:
Emily Thornberry ... tells a great story ... At a hustings she told the gobsmacked Major Brazier “I outrank you, you know”.
That's not a great story.
That's arrogant and unpleasant. And thoroughly disrespectful of someone, whether you agree with him or not, served our country.
I have never come across anyone, and I mean anyone, who has tried to pull rank on that basis.
What a nasty, petty person she must be
Depending on how it was delivered I can see it being an amusing thing to say, so long as one was clear that obviously honorary rank was not really equivalent to actual rank and service.
If he was "gobsmacked" as Don claims then it clearly wasn't delivered (or not delivered effectively) as a joke.
Someone once thought leaving a note saying there was no money left in the Treasury was a joke. In fairness it wasn't the worse.
I find the fact that her "understanding" of the military seems to have been gleaned by pursuing dishonest claims of abuse on behalf of a firm that was willing to destroy inconvenient evidence rather more of a concern.
Haven't read the thread yet, but wanted to comment on this quickly:
Emily Thornberry ... tells a great story ... At a hustings she told the gobsmacked Major Brazier “I outrank you, you know”.
That's not a great story.
That's arrogant and unpleasant. And thoroughly disrespectful of someone, whether you agree with him or not, served our country.
I have never come across anyone, and I mean anyone, who has tried to pull rank on that basis.
What a nasty, petty person she must be
Depending on how it was delivered I can see it being an amusing thing to say, so long as one was clear that obviously honorary rank was not really equivalent to actual rank and service.
If he was "gobsmacked" as Don claims then it clearly wasn't delivered (or not delivered effectively) as a joke.
I'm not defending her, I have no reason to do so, I can just see how it could have been funny, not that it was in this instance. But as far as nastiness goes, it's pretty tame. Strikes more as someone who thought they were being really clever but were not.
I feel Donald Brind's pain. I don't think Jeremy Corbyn can sack anyone else in the short term. Ken Livingstone's retrospective non-involvement is as much as can practically be done now.
Given that she and Ken apparently agree on everything his involvement is an unnecessary and pointless aggravation that isn't going to change anything.
I know Labour is in a very sad place but the idea that Des Browne is "more credible" than those currently holding the shadow post, even if it is true is deeply depressing.
In Scotland we have seen what happens when one of the natural governing parties self-destructs and leaves a government with no effective opposition. It is not pretty and does not lead to good governance. The temptation to simply laugh at the depth of the hole that Corbyn is still frantically digging should be resisted. It is not good for the country.
David, you seriously think the UK is any different to Scotland, it is indeed worse and equivalent to having a fox in a chicken coop. In my opinion the UK position is much worse, at least the SNP lean to the centre.
No I think the problem is the same in both countries. Neither administration has any effective opposition and it doesn't do either of them any favours.
@MichaelLCrick: Livingstone says Thornberry can run Lab defence review solo, as they agree on Trident. Lab source says Ken never ran defence review anyway
"Actually, there may be some value in the Beckett report after all. It could be retained, but with the date on the front cover amended to 8 May, 2020. Then when Labour loses again, it can simply be reissued with a minimum of fuss.
In fact, “Why Labour Lost” could become a regular publication. Awaited with the same anticipation in the political world as a publication like Wisden, or the new edition of the Oxford English dictionary. “So what’s your favourite edition of “Why Labour Lost”?”. “Hard one. Have to say, I have a special fondness for the bound, Lisa Nandy, 2025 version."
We know why Labour lost. Labour lost because that’s just what Labour does these days."
You could have made a similar joke about the Liberals in 1922. Turns out it would have been accurate.
I believe Swiss Des is the same chap who 'expressed a degree of regret that can be equated to an apology'. I think his view is incredible, if he thinks Trident was right in 2007 and wrong in 2015. Whilst the geopolitical scene has changed, a lot of it is the same.
Not only that, nukes are a long-term insurance policy. If a threat suddenly arises you can't order them for next day delivery from Amazon Prime.
On Thornberry: if I were maintaining an active space cannon list, she may well make the top 10.
When working with the Military..mainly US..UK..and the IDF I have always been given an "Honorary Officers Rank" usually Captain or sometimes Major..just to facilitate easy movement in the area of operation..but if a Corporal or any other rank told me to do something in an action area then I would just simply do it....and never ever tell them what to do..They all outranked me..
When working with the Military..mainly US..UK..and the IDF I have always been given an "Honorary Officers Rank" usually Captain or sometimes Major..just to facilitate easy movement in the area of operation..but if a Corporal or any other rank told me to do something in an action area then I would just simply do it....and never ever tell them what to do..They all outranked me..
When I worked at the Edinburgh Military Tattoo, the boss ate in the Officer's Mess, but he would never tell anyone he was an officer
Haven't read the thread yet, but wanted to comment on this quickly:
Emily Thornberry ... tells a great story ... At a hustings she told the gobsmacked Major Brazier “I outrank you, you know”.
That's not a great story.
That's arrogant and unpleasant. And thoroughly disrespectful of someone, whether you agree with him or not, served our country.
I have never come across anyone, and I mean anyone, who has tried to pull rank on that basis.
What a nasty, petty person she must be
Depending on how it was delivered I can see it being an amusing thing to say, so long as one was clear that obviously honorary rank was not really equivalent to actual rank and service.
If he was "gobsmacked" as Don claims then it clearly wasn't delivered (or not delivered effectively) as a joke.
Someone once thought leaving a note saying there was no money left in the Treasury was a joke. In fairness it wasn't the worse.
I find the fact that her "understanding" of the military seems to have been gleaned by pursuing dishonest claims of abuse on behalf of a firm that was willing to destroy inconvenient evidence rather more of a concern.
When you add together all the stories of pursuing false allegations, overcharging, and destruction of evidence that involve this particular firm, you can see that their referral to the SDT is long overdue.
Just occurred to me that Ken could return to the Commons as MP for Tooting if Khan wins the mayoral election. He could then be fast-tracked into Corbyn's shadow cabinet.
Given our financial position, and the cutting to the conventional forces, I'm tempted to spend the money on the conventional forces, maybe two full Airborne Air Assault Divisions.
This might enrage Mr Llama but why don't we look at a nuclear deterrent delivered via the RAF.
The bit I agree with Don was this bit
With all due respect, as they say, to Emily Thornberry and Ken Livingstone, Jeremy Corbyn might do well to sack them and hand over the review to a more credible convenor – for the good of the party and of the country.
On topic, what on Earth is Emily Thornberry doing anywhere near a defence review? All she knows about the military is cleaned from her ambulance-chasing scumbag lawyer friends with a penchant for shredding documents.
Why is Corbyn even bothering with a defence review? We all know that given half a chance he'd abolish the military completely.
Haven't read the thread yet, but wanted to comment on this quickly:
Emily Thornberry ... tells a great story ... At a hustings she told the gobsmacked Major Brazier “I outrank you, you know”.
That's not a great story.
That's arrogant and unpleasant. And thoroughly disrespectful of someone, whether you agree with him or not, served our country.
I have never come across anyone, and I mean anyone, who has tried to pull rank on that basis.
What a nasty, petty person she must be
Depending on how it was delivered I can see it being an amusing thing to say, so long as one was clear that obviously honorary rank was not really equivalent to actual rank and service.
If he was "gobsmacked" as Don claims then it clearly wasn't delivered (or not delivered effectively) as a joke.
Someone once thought leaving a note saying there was no money left in the Treasury was a joke. In fairness it wasn't the worse.
I find the fact that her "understanding" of the military seems to have been gleaned by pursuing dishonest claims of abuse on behalf of a firm that was willing to destroy inconvenient evidence rather more of a concern.
When you add together all the stories of pursuing false allegations, overcharging, and destruction of evidence that involve this particular firm, you can see that their referral to the SDT is long overdue.
Indeed, I was involved in a class action with them 20 years ago now. Took me a while to feel clean again.
"The rights agenda is a game of scissors paper stone — Melissa Kite A road resurfacer will trump a middle-class woman every time (unless she is a lesbian adopter"
On topic, what on Earth is Emily Thornberry doing anywhere near a defence review? All she knows about the military is cleaned from her ambulance-chasing scumbag lawyer friends with a penchant for shredding documents.
Why is Corbyn even bothering with a defence review? We all know that given half a chance he'd abolish the military completely.
The rate the government is going, there won't be much left by the time Corbyn gets in. That's the irony: a grown-up opposition would be able to attack the government on this.
I have an idea Janner had a standing ovation from MPs when he appeared in the Commons after the first accusation was made. I seem to remember it that way.
As a Lord, how would he appear in the Commons?
The allegations were first made in 1991 when he was still an MP.
I first heard about Janner. And Smith. And Savile... in the mid-1980s from a friend who was a Met police officer...
@KennyFarq: One in five SNP supporters would vote No in indyref2 or are undecided. What a wonderfully contrary nation we are. https://t.co/MRiFDDIeHL
Aberdeenshire is one of the SNP's strongest areas in terms of elections but in the referendum it voted pretty heavily against independence. A lot of SNP supporters in that area probably fit the stereotype of being "Tartan Tories".
@KennyFarq: One in five SNP supporters would vote No in indyref2 or are undecided. What a wonderfully contrary nation we are. https://t.co/MRiFDDIeHL
And those are just the ones who admit it.
They may be voting SNP but if not for independence , which is SNP reason for existing , it is debatable calling them "supporters". Kenny is a complete prat in any event.
I see that Professor Bale is channelling @AlastairMeeks:
Given all this, those [within Labour] whose instincts are closer to the majority of the electorate, and whose proposals are more workable in the real world than those of the Corbynistas will ever be, need to come up with big ideas as well as big politicians.
@KennyFarq: One in five SNP supporters would vote No in indyref2 or are undecided. What a wonderfully contrary nation we are. https://t.co/MRiFDDIeHL
And those are just the ones who admit it.
They may be voting SNP but if not for independence , which is SNP reason for existing , it is debatable calling them "supporters". Kenny is a complete prat in any event.
As the SNP have been one of Scotland's parties of government since at least 2007, is it not reasonable to think that quite a large number of their supporters will be backing them on their handling of domestic policy rather than the independence question? That is, after all, the relevant consequence of their vote in May.
I have an idea Janner had a standing ovation from MPs when he appeared in the Commons after the first accusation was made. I seem to remember it that way.
As a Lord, how would he appear in the Commons?
The allegations were first made in 1991 when he was still an MP.
I first heard about Janner. And Smith. And Savile... in the mid-1980s from a friend who was a Met police officer...
These were all open secrets 30 years ago.
Janner and Smith in Private Eye circa 30 years ago.
@KennyFarq: One in five SNP supporters would vote No in indyref2 or are undecided. What a wonderfully contrary nation we are. https://t.co/MRiFDDIeHL
Aberdeenshire is one of the SNP's strongest areas in terms of elections but in the referendum it voted pretty heavily against independence. A lot of SNP supporters in that area probably fit the stereotype of being "Tartan Tories".
Aberdeen must be getting hammered by the oil crash.
On topic, what on Earth is Emily Thornberry doing anywhere near a defence review? All she knows about the military is cleaned from her ambulance-chasing scumbag lawyer friends with a penchant for shredding documents.
Why is Corbyn even bothering with a defence review? We all know that given half a chance he'd abolish the military completely.
The rate the government is going, there won't be much left by the time Corbyn gets in. That's the irony: a grown-up opposition would be able to attack the government on this.
So many roads lead back to Labour, Gordon Brown and the Pork Barrel Carrier contracts. Plus the other black holes he dug. All those lovely PFI contracts that suck money out.
I see the Archbishop of Canterbury has said it was 'not for us to divide the body of Christ, it is not for us to divide the church' (lower case C on the BBC on Church).
...so, he wants to unify with the Catholics, Othordox, etc etc? Or are the divisions we already have OK?
That said, it's their church, they can keep whatever rules they want I guess.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35304528 Lord Janner 'abused 12 at children's homes' Twelve former residents of children's homes say they were abused by Lord Janner, a BBC investigation has found, as criminal proceedings end.
Isn't it marvelous that Janner escaped prosecution while he was alive. Was it because he was a QC and a Lord, and therefore had clout and some power?
It was because the CPS did not do their job properly, as they have admitted.
And to be pedantic, what the BBC has found are 12 residents of children's homes who are claiming that they were abused by Lord Janner. The BBC is in no position to make any finding of fact on criminal matters.
The accusations and others may be true but how do we know? Did the BBC go looking? On the face of it it all seems pretty nasty. Equally we have seen cases which have turned out to be spurious.
All good points. I find myself very uneasy at the way in which we automatically assume that allegations are true, just because the alleged crime is child abuse. It is precisely because it is such a serious crime that we should both investigate promptly and thoroughly and also remember that allegations are just that, allegations, and people are innocent until proved guilty after a trial. That last principle is a very important one which we have been too willing to discard in the wave of emotional parading of our disgust at what is a horrible crime.
Haven't read the thread yet, but wanted to comment on this quickly:
Emily Thornberry ... tells a great story ... At a hustings she told the gobsmacked Major Brazier “I outrank you, you know”.
That's not a great story.
That's arrogant and unpleasant. And thoroughly disrespectful of someone, whether you agree with him or not, served our country.
I have never come across anyone, and I mean anyone, who has tried to pull rank on that basis.
What a nasty, petty person she must be
Depending on how it was delivered I can see it being an amusing thing to say, so long as one was clear that obviously honorary rank was not really equivalent to actual rank and service.
I think we know enough about Thornberry to make a judgement that while she probably wasn't being serious she was trying to belittle the opponent's military career.
I think you have hit the nail on the head there.
If you have to boast about how important you are, even as a joke, you probably aren't.
Mr. Pulpstar, can't presume guilt. This isn't Cardassia Prime.
Edited extra bit: Miss Cyclefree:
Edited extra bit 2: video link didn't work *and* I just realised, even though it's a few years old now, some people may still be well behind so it might be a spoiler. Anyway, I agree.
As Thatcher said, if you need to tell people you're a lady, you're not.
Mr. Pulpstar, I'm not saying guilt can't be proven. I'm saying you can't punish the dead, and guilt mustn't be presumed.
[I'm assuming you're referring to the guilt bit, rather than suggesting the Cardassian legal system would find Savile innocent (one L. Just remember he's vile)].
and people are innocent until proved guilty after a trial.
What happens if they are errm either dead or deemed not fit to stand ?
If they're dead, they're dead. No trial can happen. So it becomes a matter of history. And if they're alive and unfit to plead, then they are innocent as a matter of law.
I yield to no-one in my disgust at child abuse. But I also remember plenty of cases where there were miscarriages of justice so even the legal system gets it wrong, let alone people making allegations to journalists.
Remember Lord McAlpine. Remember Stefan Kiszko. Remember the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven.
Miss Cyclefree, similar to rape allegations in that respect.
There was another student in the papers this week, name and photos everywhere. Acquitted of rape after a drunken night out, the allegation seemingly made under pressure from the accuser''s boyfriend as she didn't want to admit being unfaithful.
Whilst one might expect to see her in court later for the spurious allegation, at the moment she is anonymous and he has his photo on the front pages. Trials should be either in public completely or reporting restrictions placed until their conclusion, the current system doesn't work for a lot of cases. (Not putting a link for obvious reasons)
Miss Cyclefree, similar to rape allegations in that respect.
There was another student in the papers this week, name and photos everywhere. Acquitted of rape after a drunken night out, the allegation seemingly made under pressure from the accuser''s boyfriend as she didn't want to admit being unfaithful.
Whilst one might expect to see her in court later for the spurious allegation, at the moment she is anonymous and he has his photo on the front pages. Trials should be either in public completely or reporting restrictions placed until their conclusion, the current system doesn't work for a lot of cases. (Not putting a link for obvious reasons)
I tend to the view that either both parties are anonymous or neither are. I don't like anonymity when it comes to justice (save in very exceptional cases e.g children or matters of national security) so I do feel that the anonymity rules should be looked at again.
Given our financial position, and the cutting to the conventional forces, I'm tempted to spend the money on the conventional forces, maybe two full Airborne Air Assault Divisions.
This might enrage Mr Llama but why don't we look at a nuclear deterrent delivered via the RAF.
The bit I agree with Don was this bit
With all due respect, as they say, to Emily Thornberry and Ken Livingstone, Jeremy Corbyn might do well to sack them and hand over the review to a more credible convenor – for the good of the party and of the country.
If you are to have a nuclear deterrent it must be an undetectable, always-at-sea, submarine threat that can launch from anywhere in the world.
Anything else opens up the possibility of mad nutter thinking they can co-ordinate the sabotage of the known locations of your nuclear launch sites and so they may have a go. (unless you go to America like levels of multiple launch sites which is not feasible for the UK).
Plane launched, Cruise missile launched, they're out - they are all non-starters for various reasons.
Very poignant example of how people can be very badly treated by the justice system just because they don't fit into a predefined pigeonhole. One would like to hope there would be counselling available for someone in that lady's sad situation today.
“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency." Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 24 (1913)
"We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the "natural born" citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II,§ 1." Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 165 (1964)
In 1971, the SCOTUS [Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815] discussed the very Act, without which Cruz would be no more any kind of an American citizen than I am, and both the opinion and dissent(s) found that people who gain their citizenship (even at birth) under this Act are naturalized citizens...
J BLACKMUN, delivering the opinion of the Court 'Mr. Justice Gray has observed that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was "declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law," United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 169 U. S. 688. Then follows a most significant sentence: "But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. .... The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.
'Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship... rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and relegate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the usual naturalization process... The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him to gain from the possible starting point of noncitizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place.'
J BLACK, dissenting 'Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, § 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen. The first congressional exercise of this power, entitled "An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," was passed in 1790 at the Second Session of the First Congress.
'However, the clearest expression of the idea that Bellei and others similarly situated should for constitutional purposes be considered as naturalized citizens is to be found in United States v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U. S. 649 (1898): "Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts."'
J BRENNAN, dissenting 'Concededly, petitioner was a citizen at birth, not by constitutional right, but only through operation of a federal statute. ...citizens whose naturalization was carried out within the physical bounds of the United States, and those, like Bellei, who may be naturalized overseas... includes those naturalized through operation of an Act of Congress, wherever they may be at the time.'
If you are to have a nuclear deterrent it must be an undetectable, always-at-sea, submarine threat that can launch from anywhere in the world.
Anything else opens up the possibility of mad nutter thinking they can co-ordinate the sabotage of the known locations of your nuclear launch sites and so they may have a go. (unless you go to America like levels of multiple launch sites which is not feasible for the UK).
Plane launched, Cruise missile launched, they're out - they are all non-starters for various reasons.
Just so. I used to toss around these ideas as though they were obvious, better and cheaper alternatives to Trident but they are not. If you think we should have nuclear weapons (and I do) then a continuously at sea system is the only sensible option (that I've heard of).
It's better to have no nukes than nukes which are temptingly first-strikeable or which require you to go through some visible ramp up (like the idea of having subs in port that only put to sea in a crisis).
I see that Professor Bale is channelling @AlastairMeeks:
Given all this, those [within Labour] whose instincts are closer to the majority of the electorate, and whose proposals are more workable in the real world than those of the Corbynistas will ever be, need to come up with big ideas as well as big politicians.
"The ecstatic Labour delegates sitting around me in the Brighton Centre listening to Jeremy Corbyn give his first party conference speech as leader were lovely people. But they were utterly deluded."
I tend to the view that either both parties are anonymous or neither are. I don't like anonymity when it comes to justice (save in very exceptional cases e.g children or matters of national security) so I do feel that the anonymity rules should be looked at again.
Unless there is a need to gather further evidence or warn people, I don't see the advantage of publicising names of people accused of anything. If you buy a tabloid you discover that a George Smith of 17 Acacia Gardens has been accused of X. Either you know George or you don't. If you do, you probably know about the case anyway. If you don't, it does nobody any good at all, except give the reader a certain prurient interest ("hey, I drove by there only last month!"). But not only does it damage the defendant before conviction, it encourages false accusations and discourages true ones (because the complainant will be guessed at by people in the know, and in non-rape cases will actually be identified).
I tend to the view that either both parties are anonymous or neither are. I don't like anonymity when it comes to justice (save in very exceptional cases e.g children or matters of national security) so I do feel that the anonymity rules should be looked at again.
Unless there is a need to gather further evidence or warn people, I don't see the advantage of publicising names of people accused of anything. If you buy a tabloid you discover that a George Smith of 17 Acacia Gardens has been accused of X. Either you know George or you don't. If you do, you probably know about the case anyway. If you don't, it does nobody any good at all, except give the reader a certain prurient interest ("hey, I drove by there only last month!"). But not only does it damage the defendant before conviction, it encourages false accusations and discourages true ones (because the complainant will be guessed at by people in the know, and in non-rape cases will actually be identified).
After conviction, obviously it's open season.
I agree. People who are charged but not convicted inevitably suffer a lot of harm (psychological and/or material) but we should do whatever we can to limit that and, realistically, that means anonymity before conviction.
Comments
See: http://www.thstailwinds.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/debt-delusion-pdf.pdf
There's a couple of points here that are really important:
1. Corporate debt has increased, but net debt has largely declined. Why? Because companies are running with higher gross cash balances to lower refinancing risk.
2. The creation of bad banks creates double counting.
3. Bank debt has fallen quite sharply in the last eight years, even though nominal GDP has rise.
@ftbrussels [ ] rebuked for ‘demonising’ EU on.ft.com/1U0g0fP
Obviously a truly independent programme would be very costly and we just don't have the infrastructure for nuclear weapons development in the UK, but moving to an air deterrent would be prohibitively costly and would require opening up the Polaris agreement, which is not something we should be doing with a hostile POTUS like Obama in office.
*) One of those two ex-Soviet states that got rid of their nukes was Ukraine. That ended well for them, didn't it? The Budapest Memorandum - and the west's craven inability to uphold what they signed - has set back non-proliferation for years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
*) There have been lots of allegations of cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan with the latter's nuclear weapons program, including of deals whereby Saudi would receive Pakistani nukes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabia#Pakistan.27s_involvement
So the Saudis already have access to nukes, for a price.
Seems like the Trump juggernaut rolls on anyway.
Am I wasting my time working? I increasingly feel so.
Emily Thornberry ... tells a great story ... At a hustings she told the gobsmacked Major Brazier “I outrank you, you know”.
That's not a great story.
That's arrogant and unpleasant. And thoroughly disrespectful of someone, whether you agree with him or not, served our country.
I have never come across anyone, and I mean anyone, who has tried to pull rank on that basis.
What a nasty, petty person she must be
Or is that cheating - and what if it gets hacked?
http://www.steynonline.com/7408/notes-on-a-phenomenon
Today's history is that Ken was never part of the defence review
But I will restrain myself out of common decency (and the fact I am cooking breakfast)
"Actually, there may be some value in the Beckett report after all. It could be retained, but with the date on the front cover amended to 8 May, 2020. Then when Labour loses again, it can simply be reissued with a minimum of fuss.
In fact, “Why Labour Lost” could become a regular publication. Awaited with the same anticipation in the political world as a publication like Wisden, or the new edition of the Oxford English dictionary. “So what’s your favourite edition of “Why Labour Lost”?”. “Hard one. Have to say, I have a special fondness for the bound, Lisa Nandy, 2025 version."
We know why Labour lost. Labour lost because that’s just what Labour does these days."
I find the fact that her "understanding" of the military seems to have been gleaned by pursuing dishonest claims of abuse on behalf of a firm that was willing to destroy inconvenient evidence rather more of a concern.
I believe Swiss Des is the same chap who 'expressed a degree of regret that can be equated to an apology'. I think his view is incredible, if he thinks Trident was right in 2007 and wrong in 2015. Whilst the geopolitical scene has changed, a lot of it is the same.
Not only that, nukes are a long-term insurance policy. If a threat suddenly arises you can't order them for next day delivery from Amazon Prime.
On Thornberry: if I were maintaining an active space cannon list, she may well make the top 10.
Why is Corbyn even bothering with a defence review? We all know that given half a chance he'd abolish the military completely.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/01/15/natural-born-mess-what-would-it-take-to-kick-ted-cruz-off-the-ballot/
"The rights agenda is a game of scissors paper stone — Melissa Kite
A road resurfacer will trump a middle-class woman every time (unless she is a lesbian adopter"
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/the-rights-agenda-is-a-game-of-scissors-paper-stone/
These were all open secrets 30 years ago.
Given all this, those [within Labour] whose instincts are closer to the majority of the electorate, and whose proposals are more workable in the real world than those of the Corbynistas will ever be, need to come up with big ideas as well as big politicians.
impossiblefloods...so, he wants to unify with the Catholics, Othordox, etc etc? Or are the divisions we already have OK?
That said, it's their church, they can keep whatever rules they want I guess.
Edited extra bit: Miss Cyclefree:
Edited extra bit 2: video link didn't work *and* I just realised, even though it's a few years old now, some people may still be well behind so it might be a spoiler. Anyway, I agree.
As Thatcher said, if you need to tell people you're a lady, you're not.
[I'm assuming you're referring to the guilt bit, rather than suggesting the Cardassian legal system would find Savile innocent (one L. Just remember he's vile)].
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/13/10737742/husband-rapist
The wedding photo is particularly poignant.
I yield to no-one in my disgust at child abuse. But I also remember plenty of cases where there were miscarriages of justice so even the legal system gets it wrong, let alone people making allegations to journalists.
Remember Lord McAlpine.
Remember Stefan Kiszko.
Remember the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven.
And there are plenty more.
Whilst one might expect to see her in court later for the spurious allegation, at the moment she is anonymous and he has his photo on the front pages. Trials should be either in public completely or reporting restrictions placed until their conclusion, the current system doesn't work for a lot of cases.
(Not putting a link for obvious reasons)
Anything else opens up the possibility of mad nutter thinking they can co-ordinate the sabotage of the known locations of your nuclear launch sites and so they may have a go. (unless you go to America like levels of multiple launch sites which is not feasible for the UK).
Plane launched, Cruise missile launched, they're out - they are all non-starters for various reasons.
Why bother with the sham when Livingstone, Thornberry & Corbyn have already made up their minds ?
Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 24 (1913)
"We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the "natural born" citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II,§ 1." Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 165 (1964)
In 1971, the SCOTUS [Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815] discussed the very Act, without which Cruz would be no more any kind of an American citizen than I am, and both the opinion and dissent(s) found that people who gain their citizenship (even at birth) under this Act are naturalized citizens...
J BLACKMUN, delivering the opinion of the Court
'Mr. Justice Gray has observed that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was "declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law," United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 169 U. S. 688. Then follows a most significant sentence:
"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."
Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. .... The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.
'Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship... rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and relegate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the usual naturalization process... The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him to gain from the possible starting point of noncitizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place.'
[my emphases]
They are just making it up as they go along.
'Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, § 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen. The first congressional exercise of this power, entitled "An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," was passed in 1790 at the Second Session of the First Congress.
'However, the clearest expression of the idea that Bellei and others similarly situated should for constitutional purposes be considered as naturalized citizens is to be found in United States v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U. S. 649 (1898):
"Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts."'
J BRENNAN, dissenting
'Concededly, petitioner was a citizen at birth, not by constitutional right, but only through operation of a federal statute. ...citizens whose naturalization was carried out within the physical bounds of the United States, and those, like Bellei, who may be naturalized overseas... includes those naturalized through operation of an Act of Congress, wherever they may be at the time.'
[my emphases]
It's better to have no nukes than nukes which are temptingly first-strikeable or which require you to go through some visible ramp up (like the idea of having subs in port that only put to sea in a crisis).
After conviction, obviously it's open season.
http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/local/ex-rotherham-council-deputy-leader-named-as-politician-involved-in-no-prosecution-deal-with-alleged-child-abuser-1-7678719#ixzz3xKzzDUGi