Bush?

Do you like Bush

  • Yes

    Votes: 27 48.2%

  • No

    Votes: 13 23.2%

  • I wish Al Gore were in office

    Votes: 16 28.6%
  • Total voters
    56
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think, and I'll look it up if you like, it was Senetor Frank Church who made things such as sniping at Castro and poison snake jobs on traitors like bin Laden (he was aided to fight the Soviets, remember?) verboten. Do it, and you go to jail.
 
Carter's a nice guy and an idealist.
And that's about all you can say about him.
He was a fairly ineffective president. And he seems determined to use his former office as a way of annoying anyone he disagrees with who is currently in that office.
He means well, but he does a really poor job of picking the causes to champion.
 
Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
I think, and I'll look it up if you like, it was Senetor Frank Church who made things such as sniping at Castro and poison snake jobs on traitors like bin Laden (he was aided to fight the Soviets, remember?) verboten. Do it, and you go to jail.
Click to expand...

I was wrong it wasn't Carter who orginally enacted it, though I still meant what I said about Carter. It was Ford, after public out-cry when it was leaked that the CIA had been planing to takeout Castro and the president of congo. this is actually really odd, as it made said assassinations are "prohibitied", not illegal, or even punishable, being it is not an amendment to the constitution, there is no legal precedent on how to punish a puritraitor of an assassination of a foregin head of state. All the orders say is that no employee of the US gov.'t can be involved in an assassination, it says nothing about a regular citizen...

read here if u need proof.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,773574,00.htmli

also

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/04/us.assassination.policy/

Phillip Tanaka, a single senator cannot make/or dictate law, they can whine, mumble, grumble, and the like about it, but individually can't do anything.
 
Originally posted by Happy
this is actually really odd, as it made said assassinations are "prohibitied", not illegal, or even punishable, being it is not an amendment to the constitution, there is no legal precedent on how to punish a puritraitor of an assassination of a foregin head of state. All the orders say is that no employee of the US gov.'t can be involved in an assassination, it says nothing about a regular citizen...
Click to expand...
They don't need legal precedents - since they have forbidden employees of the government (and everyone else never had permission in the first place), it becomes simple murder. If a US citizen was involved in an assassination, he'd be arrested and punished or extradited to be punished.
 
Originally posted by Happy
All the orders say is that no employee of the US gov.'t can be involved in an assassination, it says nothing about a regular citizen...
Click to expand...

The government can't really prohibit ordinary citizens from assassinating people in foreign lands. Because they're not employees, they're not beholden to the government. And because the assassination takes place outside the jurisdiction of the US legal system (presumeably taking place in a foreign nation - if it occurred in the US, they'd be tried for murder), the US cannot prosecute them.
If the foreign country asked for an extradition of an assassin that had fled to the US, however, the US might comply.
 
well i don't work for the federal government, and yet, i answer to the federal government....

besides if i went to iraq, shot saddom and made it back, do u really think i'd be arrested? punished? more than likely i get a presidential pardon and protection.
 
Originally posted by Happy
besides if i went to iraq, shot saddom and made it back, do u really think i'd be arrested? punished? more than likely i get a presidential pardon and protection.
Click to expand...

Pardon?
There'd be nothing to pardon.
US laws don't apply on foreign soil. The US has no jurisdiction in Iraq, and thus you could not be tried for murder in the United States if the murder was committed in Iraq. The most the US could do to you is have you extradited to Iraq, where you'd stand trial (not likely, but a possibility).
If you went and assassinated Prime Minister Blair as he was addressing Parliment in London, you could be arrested in the US and extradited to Great Britain, but you could not be tried for murder in the United States.

The US has arrested foreign nationals for the killing of American citizens, but 1.) iirc these took place in international waters as opposed to a sovereign nation, and 2.) I still think these are on somewhat shaky legal ground.
 
the pardon would apply to the extradition, though after saying that im not sure i'd even need one, cause the state department would say no to iraq anyways.
 
I think all of that stuff regarding terrorists having rights, discounting Saddam as a terrorist, has been pissed on and then set alight. I could try and confirm that, but I thought you'd be interested to know.
 
Originally posted by Happy
the pardon would apply to the extradition, though after saying that im not sure i'd even need one, cause the state department would say no to iraq anyways.
Click to expand...

You have to be convicted of a crime before you can be pardoned.
 
Ohhhh, but then in some people's eyes, you might be considered a "war criminal". I'm still eager to hear Napoleon back up his claims that American soldiers, I believe he was talking about, "want to be able to rape, murder, steal, genocide, and commit warcrimes up the wazoo without being held accountable."
 
not to offend anyone who voted for this.... but people actually wish Al gore was in office???? dude... if Al Gore was president during 9/11 one of two things would happen.... he would have a heart attack (im suprised channey didnt, lol)... or the US would cease to exist... im sorry but its true.... he wouldnt have taken necessary action... the us would have collasped under the pressure... cause he sure as hell would try to do anything... he's too much of a wuss!
 
At least Bush appears to genuinely care about the people. Australian Prime Minister John Howard has basically said stuff those who protest war, and then dared people to vote him out. What an idiot.
 
I'm... well, not exactly in agreement with Howard ;). However, I think you're wrong - sticking up for what you believe is as far from idiocy as a leader can get. If doing the smart thing meant, for politicians, doing what will make the most people happy, then there would be no governments left - they'd all be bankrupt. After all, nobody likes to pay taxes, but everybody likes getting free stuff, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top