Illuminati-R-Us

Is Bush poisoning the wells for his successor, or just really, really stupid?

The phrase "Truth, Justice and the American Way" used to make me feel proud.

But when you see what the "American Way" really is...

At some point they must realise that everything they do just loses friends and makes the world more dangerous for US citizens.

I like the US and most US citizens but refuse to go back until I know I will have the same legal rights that a US citizen has here. Hopefully the Supreme Court will see sense in the case they are currently hearing.

I'm moving to the Australian Outback.

Heid the Ba' wrote:I like the US and most US citizens but refuse to go back until I know I will have the same legal rights that a US citizen has here.

Geez, most of the world will be off-limits by that rule...

By the way, how's the whole 42-day thing going?

Khrushchev's Other Shoe wrote:

Heid the Ba' wrote:I like the US and most US citizens but refuse to go back until I know I will have the same legal rights that a US citizen has here.

Geez, most of the world will be off-limits by that rule...

Only by area, the whole of the civilised world is ok. :D I know of nowhere else with a stated policy of kidnap on suspicion, where the suspicion can be hearsay evidence, and there is no right of habeaus corpus.

Part of the problem at the moment is the US used a treaty that was in place for terrorist suspects to extradite suspects in a fraud case. Fuckwits at the Home Office hadn't read the treaty properly and Smug Tony (and now Broon) won't change the treaty.

Khrushchev's Other Shoe wrote:By the way, how's the whole 42-day thing going?

Can't see them getting it, besides it applies equally to everyone, citizens or not. We treat everyone equally badly.

ETA: Hmm, I went in fix tags and they magically corrected themselves as I did so. I suspect our benevolent leader watches over me.

Dragon Star wrote:I'm moving to the Australian Outback.

Oh, are you?

Eco-friendly kangaroo farts could help global warming: scientists

I don't know why the rest of the world is so surprised. We lost *our* civil rights with 9/11. Don't know why you'd expect our government to respect *yours*. :?

Heid the Ba' wrote:Only by area, the whole of the civilised world is ok. :D I know of nowhere else with a stated policy of kidnap on suspicion, where the suspicion can be hearsay evidence, and there is no right of habeaus corpus.

Well, I refer to the generic statement. For sure you won't have the same legal rights in China as a Chinese person in Scotland...

Heid the Ba' wrote:Is Bush poisoning the wells for his successor, or just really, really stupid?

AMERICA has told Britain that it can “kidnap” British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States.

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.

"AMERICA has told Britain ..."? "A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal..."? That sounds like the tricks The National Inquirer used to use. Not really quoting anyone directly. And then it goes on to cite one specific case where one specific person addressed one specific court.

And the fact that people here are jumping all over Bush tells me you are acting like typical liberals. I find this to be the case time-after-time that liberals think in sound-bites and sentances while neocons think in paragraphs and concrete and complete thoughts.

The fact that one lawyer says one thing in one court does not make it a recognized real law.

Lance wrote:

Dragon Star wrote:I'm moving to the Australian Outback.

Oh, are you?

Eco-friendly kangaroo farts could help global warming: scientists

Perhaps I should start a forum with a Kangaroo mascot. Interesting. :D

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/audio_ ... the_bugle/

California's Burning. John Oliver and Andy Zaltzman get hot under the collar as the USA burns to the ground. The Empire Strikes Back. John Oliver and Andy Zaltzman extend a warm welcome to the return of the British Empire. How like Vietnam is Iraq? A look at President Bush's comparison of Vietnam and Iraq.

The UK version of The Onion or just a bloody worthless rag?

Just have a go at these bloody buggers:


Someone please run over these daft lads with a lori.

clearly they don't know what the bloody hell they are talking about just by glancing at their subject matter. And you liberal bastards are too keen to jump over Bush because it gives you a randy clown penis.

Bill_Thompson wrote:The fact that one lawyer says one thing in one court does not make it a recognized real law.

It's been in the books since the 1800s.
It's the bounty hunter concept.
A private citizen schlepping another private citizen from one jurisdiction to another, by force.
American judges seem to think that is perfectly OK.

In 1982(?) American bounty hunters abducted a Mexican national, who was wanted on charges in the US, and smuggled him to the US.
This of cause violated Mexican law. Caused quite the hoopla.
And it wasn't an unique case.

Halcyon Dayz wrote:

Bill_Thompson wrote:The fact that one lawyer says one thing in one court does not make it a recognized real law.

It's been in the books since the 1800s.
It's the bounty hunter concept.
A private citizen schlepping another private citizen from one jurisdiction to another, by force.
American judges seem to think that is perfectly OK.

In 1982(?) American bounty hunters abducted a Mexican national, who was wanted on charges in the US, and smuggled him to the US.
This of cause violated Mexican law. Caused quite the hoopla.
And it wasn't an unique case.

In that case it has nothing to do with Bush at all.

"Let's blame him for everything because the government's job is to make life fair. That is why we are all socialists and love Hillary."

You mean there actually are socialists in America?

And they care about any candidate with anything else but disdain?

Lear something new everyday.

In that case it has nothing to do with Bush at all.

Typical BT rhetoric. First he denies that Bush ever did anything of the sort, then once it is reported that others did it too, then all of a sudden it is OK because Bush didn't do it first.

lol, kinda like peddling your bicycle backward really fast hoping the friction will slow you down.

Halcyon Dayz wrote:You mean there actually are socialists in America?

And they care about any candidate with anything else but disdain?

Lear something new everyday.

There is a congressman or senator who claims to be a Socialist. There are also socialist programs in america what the Democrats embrace even if they do not call themselves socialists or admit that the programs have Socialistic origins and ideology. Where are you from?

There has been a Socialist party for years in the USA.

Enzo wrote:

In that case it has nothing to do with Bush at all.

Typical BT rhetoric. First he denies that Bush ever did anything of the sort, then once it is reported that others did it too, then all of a sudden it is OK because Bush didn't do it first.

Dragon Star wrote:lol, kinda like peddling your bicycle backward really fast hoping the friction will slow you down.

I did nothing of the sort. If it is an accepted law, Bush is not to blame for the law being in place.

Plus, the way the rag is written is one-sided. No comment is given as to why the law is in place. And it is written in true National Enquirer fashion so it is hard to know the reality through all the smoke they blow.

Bush still has had nothing to do with it either way.

Bill_Thompson wrote:I did nothing of the sort. If it is an accepted law, Bush is not to blame for the law being in place.

Plus, the way the rag is written is one-sided. No comment is given as to why the law is in place. And it is written in true National Enquirer fashion so it is hard to know the reality through all the smoke they blow.

Bush still has had nothing to do with it either way.

According to the US government's advocate the law is in place because it was put in place in the C19th. That is clearly stated in the article. What is also clearly stated is that there are extradition treaties with Mexico,Canada and the UK (among others) so there is no need for this practice.

The article may seem one-sided but that is because to be even handed would be to condone practices which are illegal under international law.

If you cannot see the reality I will be happy to explain it.

The US Supreme Court has decided that kidnapping of criminal suspects in another country is legal if they are then brought to the US for trial. This is illegal under international law. The US has an extradition treaty with Mexico so the suspect in the 1982 case could have been returned to the US in a legal manner. Since 1982 no US government or president has done anything to take this off the statute books. The current US administration were happy that this policy was stated in open court.

Remember that we are talking about suspects here. Due process, innocent until proven guilty, etc. The US government will break international law to deprive a criminal suspect of their rights.

We are also talking about criminal suspects here, the case this is based on was a drug case, this is nothing to do with the war on terror.

I do not see how Bush has anything to do with this.

Also, I notice how blindly people use anything they can to attack Bush as if the president is some sort of dieity. He doesn't have unlimited power at his disposal. He has to pick and choose what gets the limited resources and attention ( there is a joke in there, I know ). I thought it was strange how people blamed Bush for Katrina. No, not the aftermath. The storm itself.

This issue has indeed nothing particular to do with the current administration.

What however has is the fact that the CIA c.s. has been abducting citizens from other countries in other countries, and transported them over international boundaries to secret prisons.
Read up on extraordinary rendition.

If something like that had happened to an American citizen they would have called it a cause for war.
It's a double standard.