Feb 26, 2006
1:41 PM EDT
|it makes me sick of all the underhandedness that goes on in washington.
meanwhile people die in katrina and our government wasn't even prepared.
but hey I bet all those lobbyists gave money to help katrina and I am sure all our representatives have met with lobbyists since katrina.
someone needs to clean up washington.
microsoft needs to be taken down and taken down hard - they think they are above the law. it's not even about open source anymore - it is about what is morally, legally right or wrong.
our forefathers are rolling in their graves after reading this article.
Feb 26, 2006
2:18 PM EDT
| jsusanka: Honestly, I don't believe Microsoft thinks they are above the law. I believe that and I have no evidence to the contrary. I believe what they do is in accordance with law. I also think they are good corporate citizens.
That may seem contradictory to what people might believe after reading my articles. Having lived at the top of the org chart in corporate America, I know that the risk to breaking the law is too great. But if push comes to shove, I think the vast majority of CEOs stay within the letter of the law.
Microsoft's attorneys give them very good advice. It just doesn't happen to fit our model of the world. I wouldn't do some of the things they do especially with regard to partners and ISVs. But you and I draw the line differently from MS.
Another thing, I don't believe George Bush has broken the law. I don't believe he's impeachable. I think he's politically vulnerable and I believe his party views it the same way.
I totally get your sentiment. I'm on the same page with you. I just don't believe Microsoft or Bush could be indicted and it would stick.
Do I believe that if the government applied the Clayton and Sherman Anti-Trust laws to Microsoft that one could make a case? Yes, I do. Do I believe the press could pressure George Bush to bring our troops home? Yes I do.
But above the law? I'm not convinced.
Feb 26, 2006
10:05 PM EDT
|Tom -- hmmm. Do, in the United States, signed and ratified international
treaties have the force of law, like they do in other countries? Or are
they only signed and ratified for visual effect, without any serious
intention of complying? And who decides on what constitutes compliance?
This may sound off-topic, but is directly relevant to the question: has George W Bush broken 'the law'. Impeachment however has a higher standard than that.
Feb 27, 2006
3:14 AM EDT
> Another thing, I don't believe George Bush has broken the law.
I'll have to disagree there. I believe the warrantless wiretaps definitely were against the law.
> I don't believe he's impeachable.
Here I'll agree. The wiretaps do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. They were (imo) done as a good faith effort to uphold his responsibilities to defend the country. It's a shame his judgment is so flawed.
> I think he's politically vulnerable...
Oh, definitely. And the Republican party will pay the price in the next two elections, assuming the Democrats can present anyone even moderately passable (which is not certain, look at Gore and Kerry for examples).
Feb 27, 2006
3:17 AM EDT
> Do, in the United States, signed and ratified international
treaties have the force of law, like they do in other countries?
In theory, yes. But see below.
> And who decides on what constitutes compliance?
On a day to day basis, the executive branch. I.E., the president and company. As always, Congress has the ability to review matters and pass legislation if they're not happy with how the executive is doing. They also control the purse strings.
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!