這才是有理性的討論,戴耀廷和范徐麗泰, 協恩中學好嘢, 校長

lbtjo

playerboy 發表於 2013-7-11 10:32
回應 lbtjo #69 的帖子

What is the area that is unclear?  Let me put it this way, this is the first  ...

Amazing! Again, you only focus on the procedure of extradition. However, you never touch the faults created by the US during the issuance of the warrant. Just ignore what you want to ignore!

lbtjo

playerboy 發表於 2013-7-11 10:39
回應 lbtjo #72 的帖子

Wrong, I think you need to brush up your law, if not we cannot continue this  ...

Read your news again to find out what is the excuse of Putin please.

playerboy

回應 lbtjo #90 的帖子

You should be the one reading you news again.  Plus see what you write that is from your own word "Snowden has not entered Russia. "  By your definition, Transit Zone is not consider entering a country thus if this is the case, anyone can commit any crime in transit zone already or even better anyone can commit a crime and hide in the transit zone.  Since all this debate is base on law.  Again please brush up your knowledge in law and get your facts right.

All my points, I had try to provide facts, whereas I can see your points of argument, instead of providing the facts on your points, you will just throw something out and expect me to proof that it is wrong.  And when I proof that it is wrong, you will try to throw another smoke bomb.  This is not the health way of debating.

So now please show me the facts that a transit zone is not consider the part of the country.  Please name me any countries that have such system.

There a link under where Putin admit that Snowden is in Russia Transit Zone, however in the later part, he did mention that he will not extradite him due to no extradite agreement (this is a valid reason).

Let me provide a link to your, this is a Irish new
http://www.irishexaminer.com/bre ... snowden-598487.html

(Russian president Vladimir Putin has said National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden is in the transit zone of a Moscow airport and will not be extradited to the United States.

Mr Putin said Mr Snowden hasn’t crossed the Russian border and is free to go anywhere.

He said the fugitive whistleblower's arrival in Moscow has been "unexpected" and that he has committed no crime in Russia.

Speaking on a visit to Finland, he added that Russian security agencies “didn’t work and aren’t working” with Mr Snowden. He gave no more details.

Commenting on a US request to extradite him, Mr Putin said Russia doesn’t have an extradition agreement with the US and thus would not meet the US request.

He voiced hope that Mr Snowden will depart as quickly as possible and that his stopover at Moscow’s airport wouldn’t affect bilateral ties.

His comments come after the U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, urged Russia to be "calm", and hand over Mr Snowden.)

playerboy

回應 lbtjo #89 的帖子

You can talking of the fault, please provide the fault as what I had done.  Again there are never in extradite history that this is handle before.  That is why it is double standard, when I extradite anyone, there is one standard (as what this so call fault, will never be apply), however when I need to extradite Snowden.  Then this become a fault.  Which mean there are 2 standard of extradition.  This is call double standard.

I ask again, when I state something, you had ask me to provide proof.  Now it should be your turn to provide the proof to me on this so call fault did apply to law.  

lbtjo

lbtjo 發表於 2013-7-12 08:46
Read your news again to find out what is the excuse of Putin please.

Again, you don't want to read. If your thinking is correct, why don't Snowden entering Russia instead of staying in the airport? If you don't read, please think.

lbtjo

playerboy 發表於 2013-7-12 09:27
回應 lbtjo #89 的帖子

You can talking of the fault, please provide the fault as what I had done.  A ...

I already mentioned but you did not. And you just keeps on thinking that US has no fault though up to now, US only mentions that they are very disappointed to HK/China's handling. US does not mention the procedure anymore. Please read.

playerboy

回應 lbtjo #94 的帖子

I had show you my proof, please show me that US did not mention anymore.   OK, let me go back to basic.  The reason, that Hong Kong mention is that US did not provide the "correct name".  However this is not require in extradition agreement or even a arrest warrant (such reason was never been use before for rejection).  The answer, simple, a person can have different name (which is common and the authority might not even have his name right).  Thus if you agree with this explanation of the government, then Hong Kong authority had break the law many time as there are cases that when arrest warrant was issue base on photo only.   I think I can finally see the different on our view point as it is the interpretation of the law.  And let me summary this, please tell me if my understand of your view point is wrong.

Again I provide the reply from US official that they state that there are no mistake

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... den-fled-hong-kong/


My view
1) A name is not required for extradition/warrant arrest, which had been the common practice till date
2) Transition Zone is within a country law

Your view
1) A name is required for extradition/warrant arrest.
2) Anyone inside Transition Zone is not under the country law.

1000year

回應 controllboy #1 的帖子

有问题公开讨论，讲道理不辨不明，这个讨论倒是搞的不错。不过，“范太在半小時演講稱，佔中發動一萬人長期佔領中環要道，癱瘓香港政經中心：「如果中環癱瘓，影響正常運作，香港評級下降，講得難聽啲，係自己打自己、自殘，對邊個有好處？」她指出，香港憑經濟發展成為中國的東方明珠，約四大支柱之一的金融業受挫，上海、廣州南沙、深圳前海或珠海橫琴可能取而代之，即使佔中成功，香港亦代價沉重。”这句是重点。

怎样为香港人谋福利，这是从政者不得不考虑的问题。民众可以通过各种渠道表达自己的意见，这一点上香港做的比全世界大多数地方要好。但是如果是通过不适当的手段来发声，甚至这种手段会带来对香港不利的后果，从结果上来看，是发声的手段改变了发声的目的。不可不查

1000year

回應 controllboy #1 的帖子

有问题公开讨论，讲道理不辨不明，这个讨论倒是搞的不错。不过，“范太在半小時演講稱，佔中發動一萬人長期佔領中環要道，癱瘓香港政經中心：「如果中環癱瘓，影響正常運作，香港評級下降，講得難聽啲，係自己打自己、自殘，對邊個有好處？」她指出，香港憑經濟發展成為中國的東方明珠，約四大支柱之一的金融業受挫，上海、廣州南沙、深圳前海或珠海橫琴可能取而代之，即使佔中成功，香港亦代價沉重。”这句是重点。

怎样为香港人谋福利，这是从政者不得不考虑的问题。民众可以通过各种渠道表达自己的意见，这一点上香港做的比全世界大多数地方要好。但是如果是通过不适当的手段来发声，甚至这种手段会带来对香港不利的后果，从结果上来看，是发声的手段改变了发声的目的。不可不查

谷村富郎

ninetenfortytwo 發表於 2013-7-11 22:49
谷村富郎：用你慣常用語: 唔可以用犯法做理由,咁你認定佢地係合法喇？答我係定唔係！

你個腦諗嘢係唔係 ...

哈！唔係馬？我都係試吓學你講嘢方式同你玩吓之嗎,你咁快就發晒火鬧我,咁邊好玩架？我都係學到你兩成左右乍播,你成日都系咁同班兄弟講嘢架播,,我封個名俾这種模式叫它做"1942 style",你係始創人,擁有版權,誰用你向佢收版權費。
我上述一段嘢你如果用1942 style答,係咪咁:你個腦有问题呀？我同你講東你去講西,成段嘢帶我遊花園唔知你up乜？你幾時正式答我？[/size]

lbtjo

playerboy 發表於 2013-7-12 10:40
回應 lbtjo #94 的帖子

I had show you my proof, please show me that US did not mention anymore.   OK ...

Read Putin’s statement carefully.  Mr Putin said Mr Snowden hasn’t crossed the Russian border and is free to go anywhere.

Then there is another statement: Commenting on a US request to extradite him, Mr Putin said Russia doesn’t have an extradition agreement with the US and thus would not meet the US request.

You are putting two statements together and forcing Putin’s logic to yours!!!

Now, you start to read news. However, your news is very old. Jun 24 was only one day immediately after Snowden leaving HK. Your news mentioned that : Justice Department officials, however, say there was no indication from Hong Kong until the last minute that anything was missing or amiss.

However, as I mentioned before, HK had notified US five days prior to Snowden’s departure to Russia. Go to check the news again, what is the last response of US regarding this.

playerboy

回應 lbtjo #98 的帖子

You keep tell me to check whereas I had provide the information.  You had not provide on the question that I had ask.  What is the missing documents?  And is this what is your view point on law? which is

1) A name is required for extradition/warrant arrest.
2) Anyone inside Transition Zone is not under the country law.

As if this is your view point then there is no point debating.  I will rest my case until your post can provide the following instead.

1) What is the document missing as claim by Hong Kong?  Nothing if it is only what they claim is the Name, then it is already against Hong Kong law.  

You are the one that trying to put 2 of Putin statement into one.  Snowden cannot be expel (read this clearly it is expel, it is not extradite as he is in transit zone and did not break Russia law).  He will not be extradite as Russia have no extradite law with US.  I had clear quote why transit zone is consider as the country with solid facts, which you never even bother to explain why transit zone is not consider the country as this is your view point.

Let me put statement of the news here


Mr Putin said Mr Snowden hasn’t crossed the Russian border and is free to go anywhere.

He said the fugitive whistleblower's arrival in Moscow has been "unexpected" and that he has committed no crime in Russia.

Speaking on a visit to Finland, he added that Russian security agencies “didn’t work and aren’t working” with Mr Snowden. He gave no more details.

Commenting on a US request to extradite him, Mr Putin said Russia doesn’t have an extradition agreement with the US and thus would not meet the US request.

He voiced hope that Mr Snowden will depart as quickly as possible and that his stopover at Moscow’s airport wouldn’t affect bilateral ties.

His comments come after the U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, urged Russia to be "calm", and hand over Mr Snowden.>

any part that indicate that this is the reason that Russia refuse extradite as you claim?  

another part of regarding extradite request, did he comment that he cannot extradite him because Snowden is in Transit Zone?

< Commenting on a US request to extradite him, Mr Putin said Russia doesn’t have an extradition agreement with the US and thus would not meet the US request.>


And please since you keep saying that you had follow the news, please show the link here on the news that you read.  Look like you cannot provide any proof that you even read it at all as you never provide any proof here.

tuicho

ninetenfortytwo會員
你只會問我全世界所有當權者嘅立場
佢既乜野立場呀,問得咁廣泛,你問Q哂啦
我點答呀
全世界所有當權者嘅立場會一樣既咩
我只會答你
好既我會認同,唔好我會否決
至於點為之好定唔好
個個人心中的尺唔同
所以你唔使再問
有D人叫人犯法亦有人叫好
你識話佔中係犯法已經可以了
我亦講佔中係犯法
犯法就係犯法
無公義不公義
犯法就要拉
這是香港法冶精神
有些人認為為普選佔中係公義犯法就可以無罪
如果有D人認為為普選打劫係公義你又點睇
你唔好同我講兩者唔同
前者係害全港市民經濟
後者係害被劫者既經濟
心中民主自由大哂呀
要損害他人利益達到自己所得到既行為值得鼓勵咩

tuicho

ninetenfortytwo 發表於 2013-7-11 23:48
谷村富郎：用你慣常說法: 咁你係唔係話佔中班人一定係公義？政府拉佢地坐監就唔公義啊？

你d邏輯推斷都 ...

你認為公義就公義既咩
有一部份人認同佢就係公義咩
我認為佢地一D都唔公義
只係為左自己所想就鼓吹他人犯法

正如黑社會佢地認為自己講義氣係公義
將無義氣既人毒打
一樣有一班人支持佢地
咁佢地又可唔可以話係公義打人無罪
從而產生你所說
你用犯法呢個理由嚟反對黑社會打無義條既人係唔成立嘅，因為你讚賞斯諾登犯法，照你嘅標準，黑社會打無義條既人犯法有乜問題？唔通邊個犯法係啱，邊個犯法係唔啱，要由你說了算？