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.
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...
Khrushchev's Other Shoe wrote:By the way, how's the whole 42-day thing going?
Dragon Star wrote:I'm moving to the Australian Outback.
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.
Heid the Ba' wrote:Is Bush poisoning the wells for his successor, or just really, really stupid?
Lance wrote:Dragon Star wrote:I'm moving to the Australian Outback.
Oh, are you?
Eco-friendly kangaroo farts could help global warming: scientists
Bill_Thompson wrote:The fact that one lawyer says one thing in one court does not make it a recognized real law.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Return to Current Events and Politics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests