On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:30:12 -0400, Thanatos <atropos@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>In article <nqq4v39esmofobb15e2p8t1791gahdp0vq@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> John Schilling <schillin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:17:35 -0400, Thanatos <atropos@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >In article <HcWdna6MotpGZ3LanZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> > "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> > Last Friday, Wagner and another critic of the LHC's safety
measures,
>> >> > Luis Sancho, filed a lawsuit in Hawaii's U.S. District Court. The
suit
>> >> > calls on the U.S. Department of Energy, Fermilab, the National
Science
>> >> > Foundation and CERN to ease up on their LHC preparations for
several
>> >> > months while the collider's safety was re*****sed.
>> >What jurisdiction does a U.S. federal court have over a scientific
>> >project in Switzerland?
>> That would depend on the specific contractual arrangements made between
>> the US government and the project's management. But seeing as how the
>> US government sent something like half a billion dollars to Switzerland
>> to help build the thing, I kind of suspect they got something in
writing
>> giving the US some control over how it is used.
>And if the Swiss say, "Yeah, well "some control" doesn't mean an
>American judge gets to shut the whole thing down with the stroke of a
>penb because some crank files a lawsuit in America. You go ahead and
>have your court case but don't think we're going to let your judges tell
>us what we can and can't do in Switzerland"... then what?
As I said, that depends on the wording of the contract. But if the
contract has terms that would allow the US partners to veto or even
just delay startup, and I can think of several ways that's likely to
be true, then your hypothetical Swiss judge is also saying, "...and
we won't let the contracts we signed tell us what we can and can't
do in Switzerland!"
Then what?
Thousands of Americans who have between them billions of dollars
deposited in Swiss banks say to themselves, "Hmm, I thought my Swiss
bank deposits were pretty secure on account of that contract that
says I can withdraw my money at any time, and I know that any American
judge would rule in my favor if I had to sue to get my money back, but
now Swiss judges are saying that the Swiss will just ignore both the
contracts and the American judges whenever they want to do something
different? What if they decide they want to just keep all my money
and never give it back? Hmm, do judges in the Cayman Islands do that
sort of thing? Not that anyone's heard of recently? Perhaps I should
reconsider my banking arrangements..."
Which means that what *really* happens is that A: the Swiss judge is
not going to make such a daft ruling, and B: if he did, the Swiss
government would reverse the decision before anyone in the US had
even heard about it.
>It's not like the judge can force the Swiss to comply with any of his
>orders.
So what?
Law, and diplomacy, are for very good and sound reasons very, very
conservative (in the apolitical sense) professions. They do not, ever,
proceed on the basis of, "the other guy can't/won't force me to do
things his way by sending Men With Guns at me, so I'll just do whatever
I want and to hell with him, there's nothing he can do about it!"
Law and diplomacy favor the status quo over everything. The status
quo *does not change*, until A: everyone involved has agreed that it
should change, and how, or B: everyone involved has spent at least
six months trying to come to an agreement, failed, and some of them
have decided the issue is worth making an enemy over.
The status quo is that the LHC is turned off. Most likely, after an
American judge has had a quick chuckle at the American nutcases who
wasted his time with a dumbass lawsuit, all the lawyers and diplomats
involved will agree that the LHC should be turned on, on schedule.
But the status quo is that the LHC is turned off. If any of the
partners in the project, for any reason, want it to stay turned off,
it's not going to be turned on for at least six months, even if it
is in Switzerland where American Men With Guns can't/wouldn't dare
force the issue.
Because spending six months trying to do it right, is what convinces
the bystanders that you're also going to do the right thing when it
comes to e.g. their bank accounts.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schillin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
|
