US doesn't honor treaties and Texas sucks.

[Dinner]

Democratic not Democrat.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Elok
I half-expected this to be about the Democrat candidates promising to violate the hell out of NAFTA. Only that has relatively little to do with Texas AFAIK. BTW, has there been a thread on that?

Not on this website. Basically Ohio was a really close race so both candidates stooped down to baseless pandering for the union vote in that rust belt state. Pathetic.

[SlowwHand]

Everything sucks except the San Diego area and criminals. Once you learn that about Oerdin, the rest is pretty meaningless.

[Dinner]

Naw, lots of places are nice. Texas just keeps doing dumb things though.

[Verto]

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.

I don't understand why you are so vehemently opposed to law and order.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Verto
I don't understand why you are so vehemently opposed to law and order.

Sloww's the one on the side of law and order. Texas was within its rights. They have the legal opinion to back it up.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


The difference between self-executing treaties and those that need Congressional action for execution has been around well before Roberts' turn on the Court.

That's an interesting reasoning, and I suppose understandable. I guess I (and Oerdin and the rest of us) don't necessarily have a full understanding of treaties and what treaties we sign, in the sense that we certainly don't want to end up in a situation that we didn't intend vis-a-vis treaties or ICJ obligations (particularly the latter). I still think that if it's approved by Congress, it should be treated as law; but the exact wording certainly matters, so I suppose this argument is not entirely without merit.

I'd still have ruled that it be retried on the basis that the damage done to the state is minimal, and the damage to the defendant significant, so the balance should weigh in favor of the defendant in something like this that isn't entirely clear; but I suppose legal rulings don't work that way

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Sloww's the one on the side of law and order. Texas was within its rights. They have the legal opinion to back it up.

THANK YOU!
It always amazes me when threads like this are started lamenting the plight of a person that every single detail about them is criminal; yet we're to feel badly for them. Horse****. They can lock this guy up for 10 years and he's still ahead of the game.

[Verto]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


THANK YOU!
It always amazes me when threads like this are started lamenting the plight of a person that every single detail about them is criminal; yet we're to feel badly for them. Horse****. They can lock this guy up for 10 years and he's still ahead of the game.

Oh, what a bunch of bullsh*t. Who here is asking you to feel sorry for this scumbag? Or can you not see the difference in what people are arguing over?

[SlowwHand]

Besides Oerdin? Make it a poll. I'm not bothering with counting posts.

[Dinner]

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.

[SlowwHand]

I don't care about the rights he thinkns he has. Mexico detained that bouty hunter for chasing a convicted felon. Where was your outcry?
Tourist, mostly college girls, are kidnapped and murdered in alarming numbers inside Mexico. Where is your thread?
He's illegal. His rights are virtually nil.

[Dinner]

The booty hunter was acting illegally. He went into another country and kidnapped someone. What's so hard to understand about following laws?

[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.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by snoopy369
That's an interesting reasoning, and I suppose understandable. I guess I (and Oerdin and the rest of us) don't necessarily have a full understanding of treaties and what treaties we sign, in the sense that we certainly don't want to end up in a situation that we didn't intend vis-a-vis treaties or ICJ obligations (particularly the latter). I still think that if it's approved by Congress, it should be treated as law; but the exact wording certainly matters, so I suppose this argument is not entirely without merit.

Recall that treaties are only required to be approved by ONE branch of the legislature. That tends to complicate things a bit since the House of Representatives is frozen out of the process. In that respect, if a treaty doesn't not specifically specify the law that is to be applied and the punishments for it, then usually Congressional action is required to execute the treaty.