Originally Posted by oldreliable67 you have now reiterated one of your basic errors in asserting that someone's testimony in a deposition is "legally binding" on them.

Originally Posted by oldreliable67 Third, you have now used affidavit and deposition synonymously. They are not the same.

Originally Posted by TheHonestTruth I never said that. I said a sworn court affidavit is legally binding, which it is. And if you don't want to read anything in context then don't come here with your pseudo knowledge of legalese. Firstly you have provided no links on the legal definition of binding, secondly the way I was using if I am incorrect on that should have been clear enough but obviously you want to nit pick definitions instead looking for meanings.

If you still need clarification this was my point: He could be charged for lying on the sworn court affidavit. Thats a fact. Don't muddy that point.

Also you sound like you're not knowledgeable about this subject but rather you've googled a bit and now you're trying to be a fake expert. Its not convincing me.

Actually you'll notice I never used the word deposition. I did use the word subpoena but not synonymously with the word affidavit.

BTW, this is what your wiki link says, get your story straight. "Some jurisdictions recognize an affidavit as a form of deposition."

Jray,

The great disagreement I have with Mr. Chomsky and others who seek to make idealism the driving force of foreign policy (both on the Left and the Right), is that foreign policy decision making has never been wholly a matter of moral purity so to speak. The choices foreign policy makers must make are not black-and-white. There is a great deal of ambiguity. Uncertainty is pervasive.

The challenge of reconciling geopolitical interests, national security, the balance of power, and human rights is a challenging one. More often than not, difficult tradeoffs need to be made. Safeguarding and advancing critical national interests takes precedence. After all, if a nation cannot adequately assure its survival, other noble considerations e.g., its ability to advocate human rights becomes irrelevant. If it cannot ensure its economic wellbeing and military strength, it cannot advance its geopolitical objectives and safeguard its critical interests.

Finally, a nation's embracing peace, adopting a posture of non-intervention, and minimizing the size of its armed forces does not provide it with immunity from would-be aggressors. Indeed, human nature being what it is, such well-meaning policies could actually signal weakness and invite aggression. Blowback is real. However, it is not the only consideration in policy making.

Originally Posted by donsutherland1 human nature being what it is, such well-meaning policies could actually signal weakness and invite aggression. Blowback is real. However, it is not the only consideration in policy making.