US doesn't honor treaties and Texas sucks.

[snoopy369]

Hmm, true. And I suppose it would be very bad if you allowed the President+Senate to make law simply by passing a treaty (say, the treaty with Iceland that all citizens of both countries will get large tax refunds) ...

[SlowwHand]

So following this reasoning, let's say Bin Laden is actually apprehended, in Afghanistan by allied troops.
Who gets him? What are his rights? I guesss a call to a consulate of sone kind is in order? Well, of course, if he's in Afghanistan illegally, naturally he gets some kind of call.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I feel sorry for him now? Jesus sloww get a gripe on yourself. I've repeatedly said I have no sympathy for him but do desire the rule of law which has not occurred here. Even if Roberts comes up with an excuse to invalidate a 45 year old treaty.

Part of the rule of law, perhaps the most important part, is judicial review.

At first glance it seemed to me that Texas was wrong but after reading the explanations by the Supreme Court it seemed to make sense. Thats why we have judges and not people in forums decide complicated legal matters. I doubt the Texans involved were actually aware of this subtlety when they acted as they did. But through the process of judicial review their actions were legal.

[SlowwHand]

Yeah, we're just a bunch of dumbasses who don't know about laws. I guess we just lucked out, huh? Christ.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
So following this reasoning, let's say Bin Laden is actually apprehended, in Afghanistan by allied troops.
Who gets him? What are his rights? I guesss a call to a consulate of sone kind is in order? Well, of course, if he's in Afghanistan illegally, naturally he gets some kind of call.

Afghanistan is most likely not a signor of the treaty of Vienna at question here Regardless, he's an international war criminal so more than likely he'd be sent to the Hague, unless the US-backed Afghan government wanted claim on him first.

[Deity Dude]

Sloww I didn't quite mean it that way. I meant that I doubt the police agency or DA holding him had the same knowledge of treaties/international law and there intepretations as regards to domestic law.

Calm down - I said you were right.

On a side note - I doubt letting him be in contact with is embassy would have had any effect on the outcome of the trial so I don't know why just a s a mmter of international courtesy and CYA they just didn't let him.

[SlowwHand]

But he does get to call a consulate? Right?

[snoopy369]

Not if Afghanistan didn't sign the treaty, no.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The guy you like

Christ all mighty! You keep repeating that lie like you think it will become true.

[SlowwHand]

Oerdin, who started the thread and titled it?

[Dinner]

The title is completely accurate.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I think it's funny, all the attention for this guy, an illegal , and questions questions asked about what if it was a USA citizen in another country.

In the first place USA citizens ARE seized, ARE detained and ARE murdered, for the crime of being American. Does it matter that they're where they are legally? Evidently not. Where's your righteous indignation?
You misspend your emotion.

This treaty is actually to the advantage of the US, but Americans seem to have little trouble shooting themselves in the foot.

But hey, I guess this guy in Texas has little cause for complaint, unlike that Canadian engineer who was merely passing through the US and was detained, sent god knows where, to a rat infested cell where he was butt-****ed, electrocuted and otherwise tortured for months, despite the fact he had committed no crime.

And then your ass-raping government says he can't sue because it would violate national security.

Anyone who doesn't want to be imprisoned with vermin and victimized by psychopathic homosexuals should reconsider transiting through the US.

And you think a Mexican guy who might want to call his embassy is unreasonable. **** me...

[Wezil]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
He arrested a convicted felon that fled.
The guy you like was here tota;y without clearance and is a violent criminal. As you can see, in both instances, you vote criminal.

I'm waiting for the bounty hunter to go and nab Kissinger and remove him from the US so he can finally stand trial and quit avoiding justice. Would you have a problem with that or would you vote "criminal"? The dirtbag felon has been avoiding justice for decades.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Agathon

Anyone who doesn't want to be imprisoned with vermin and victimized by psychopathic homosexuals should reconsider transiting through the US.

A little overstated, but yes. I have cancelled a planned trip to the US and won't be planning any more.

[SlowwHand]

A little overreaction, but fine. If you're a gang raper and murderer though, it's probably well-advised.
You could still go to California. They evidently condone it there.