|
Post by BadBeast on Aug 21, 2012 10:34:19 GMT -5
On the "Civil Rights" thing again, I just found a piece of US Legislation, that the whole World should be shouting about.
"AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION TO OVERRIDE INTERNATIONAL LAW IN EXTRA-TERRITORIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES"
June 21, 1989
*163 At the direction of the President or the Attorney General, the FBI may use its statutory authority to investigate and arrest individuals for violating United States law, even if the FBI's actions contravene customary international law. The President, acting through the Attorney General, has the inherent constitutional authority to deploy the FBI to investigate and arrest individuals for violating United States law, even if those actions contravene customary international law.
Extraterritorial law enforcement activities that are authorized by domestic law are not barred even if they contravene unexecuted treaties or treaty provisions, such as Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter.
An arrest that is inconsistent with international or foreign law does not violate the Fourth Amendment."
|
|
|
Post by The Mad Hatter on Aug 21, 2012 11:01:46 GMT -5
June 21, 1989
I was going to say that has been around for decades. The US has no respect for borders or nations if there is something they want.
|
|
|
Post by BadBeast on Aug 21, 2012 13:01:31 GMT -5
We ain't skeered of no F.B.I over here! We don't got no Federal Frickin' Dee partments of anything anyways! We'll storm yore Emabssy iffen you be startin' any troubles here, jus like we did wit teh Libyanese back in '79!
|
|
|
Post by marisol on Aug 21, 2012 13:58:14 GMT -5
Cutie pie over here we just shoot them in both legs and don't give them crutches.
|
|
|
Post by StormInateacup on Aug 21, 2012 16:22:23 GMT -5
"US demands total impunity on war crimes: Ultimatum to Europe in advance of Iraq war", Fr: World Socialist Web Site, 12 October 2002
"With the Bush administration gearing up for a 'preemptive' war against Iraq, Washington this week dispatched a senior US diplomat, Marisa Lino, to Europe to demand that the governments of the European Union (EU) agree to a blanket exemption of all US citizens from the jurisdiction of the newly formed International Criminal Court ... it is insisting that governments around the world sign bilateral treaties agreeing not to turn over any American citizens in the event that they are indicted by prosecutors at the court. With the more impoverished and former colonial countries, Washington has threatened to cut off aid unless agreements are signed."
In early 2003, Bush got his total exemption from War Crimes for himself, for his military commanders, and his soldiers, just in time for him to launch his war on March 20, 2003. Now that the truth of Depleted Uranium Munitions is beginning to unfold in the public eye, we can see why our President was so anxious about his potential criminal liability before the International Criminal Court!
Proof that they planned atrocities - and that they planned to get away with it scot free too.
|
|
|
Post by marisol on Aug 22, 2012 13:28:13 GMT -5
Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to mans rights, it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. Ayn Rand
|
|
firesong
Lecturer In Regular Oration(Lvl 4)
Posts: 136
|
Post by firesong on Aug 22, 2012 14:45:10 GMT -5
Any government strong enough to give you everything you want, is strong away to take away everything you have...
|
|
|
Post by BadBeast on Aug 22, 2012 15:13:17 GMT -5
Wealth, equality, security, all count for nothing without a ruler who knows the art of Statecraft.
|
|
|
Post by The Mad Hatter on Aug 22, 2012 15:18:36 GMT -5
I do not choose to be ruled, but instead to see those elected as servants.
|
|
|
Post by BadBeast on Aug 22, 2012 16:23:27 GMT -5
The only good, effective, and moral government, is self government. (Or as I like to call it, "Anarchy")
|
|
|
Post by BadBeast on Aug 22, 2012 17:47:37 GMT -5
The Learning of the Wise, The Justice of the Great, and the Valour of the Brave, all fall to nothing without a Ruler who knows the Art of Ruling"
|
|
kelly
Graduate Of Infrequent Loquacity(Lvl 3)
Remember, attraction is a three way street...or is it a one way tunnel?
Posts: 79
|
Post by kelly on Aug 23, 2012 9:57:12 GMT -5
So many are cheering after passage of this new bill. I say they are wrong to cheer, they should feel their blood running cold. Any time the government moves to further restrict civil rights is a time to rebel, not cheer. The new law will have strong implications for the Westboro Baptist Church, a Kansas-based organization which the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League have labeled a hate group. Westboro Baptist Church has drawn media attention for its brand of protest, which frequently links the deaths of soldiers to America's growing acceptance of gays. Under the new legislation, protests must be held at least 300 feet from military funerals and are prohibited two hours before or after a service. The law counters a 2011 Supreme Court ruling, which found that displays such as Westboro's were protected under the First Amendment. www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/honoring-americas-veterans-act-obama_n_1748454.html I can't stand those people at WBC and what they stand for, but your post reminds me of a quote from someone I have MAD respect for...I know you guys know the quote but I felt like I had to contribute something: "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." Noam Chomsky SIGH. Freedom of speech for everyone, even the idiots at WBC.
|
|
|
Post by BadBeast on Aug 23, 2012 16:39:09 GMT -5
I always get the nagging feeling that America's "Freedom of speech" thing gets it wrong in a one sense. I mean any old Jack o' Bedlam can get up and say the most contentious, or insulting, or provocative shit imaginable, to whoever they like, and no matter what is said, they enjoy Legal protection from any consequences or recriminations they might provoke from people. So does Freedom of speech have a caveat that exempts the speaker from having to accept responsibility from any effects his words might provoke in others?
|
|
|
Post by The Mad Hatter on Aug 23, 2012 16:41:55 GMT -5
No.
|
|
|
Post by The Mad Hatter on Aug 23, 2012 16:43:15 GMT -5
|
|