BF2S Forums Shady New Terror Group Known As "Interpol" Operating Within The US!

Vilham wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Interpol is great and all however the US has its own elite police force.  So much for the O protecting and defending the constitution and the poor souls he presides over.  This guy doesn't act in the best intrests of the US.  I swear the big O see himself as a custodian or governor of the US in acting like he's jockying for President of the World.  I can't wait till he's outta office and can no longer harm my great country.  But Norris has lost it on this one though.

'Elite police force'? You mean the one that is so shit you have to own guns to protect yourselfs and the guys that repeatedly fail to stop attempted terrorist attacks?

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Right-wing blogs have been on fire of late discussing a shady new International organisation that President Obama has granted special privileges, exemptions, and immunities to, including, it is claimed, the power to investigate and even lock up U.S. citizens! No less a figure than Chuck Norris himself has taken up the conservative gauntlet in this quest for truth, going so far as to suggest that President Obama has a secret vault at Interpol's New York office in which to conceal important records about the war on terror from the American public!

What a goon that man is. Interpol, an International police agency that is aimed at sharing information and tracking criminals between borders, and Chuck Norris thinks it's an evil conspiracy. Interpol are as old as the hills and have been instrumental in tracking down dangerous criminals, including sex offenders, in the past. Why do right-wing nutcases only like fighting 'terror' when it's involves shady private organisations like Blackwater?

Here's the original executive order.

A case of the tail wagging the dog. As an American citizen I have Constitutional rights that are not superseded by international law. Screw interpol.

What about Afghani citizens who have constitutional rights that are not superseded by international law and choose to attack foreign troops who have infiltrated their borders? It's a bit of an aside but my point is why should everyone else be expected to give up certain rights and freedoms in the war on 'terror' except for Americans?

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

A case of the tail wagging the dog. As an American citizen I have Constitutional rights that are not superseded by international law. Screw interpol.

What about Afghani citizens who have constitutional rights that are not superseded by international law and choose to attack foreign troops who have infiltrated their borders? It's a bit of an aside but my point is why should everyone else be expected to give up certain rights and freedoms in the war on 'terror' except for Americans?

Except in your case, those foreign troops (I'm guessing your referring to NATO/ISAF troops) are there at the request of their Constitutional government, so they did not "infiltrate" (nice twist there, to make it seem evil). So, in essence, any Afghans who attack those foreign troops who are there legally are performing illegal acts against their own government.

Very poor choice of analogy, Brad.

Mekstizzle wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

What about Afghani citizens who have constitutional rights that are not superseded by international law and choose to attack foreign troops who have infiltrated their borders? It's a bit of an aside but my point is why should everyone else be expected to give up certain rights and freedoms in the war on 'terror' except for Americans?

Except in your case, those foreign troops (I'm guessing your referring to NATO/ISAF troops) are there at the request of their Constitutional government, so they did not "infiltrate" (nice twist there, to make it seem evil). So, in essence, any Afghans who attack those foreign troops who are there legally are performing illegal acts against their own government.

Very poor choice of analogy, Brad.

Well not really, they didn't have a government until the invasion started. Their government was, for the most part, the Taliban. If you want to talk about 'Constitutional government' then the one that asked for help (Northern Alliance) were no less a 'Constitutional government' than the Taliban were. Just that the Taliban controlled more land.

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

Sorry, the US does not recognize international law over our own Constitution, it never has.  Third rate countries that make up the UN does not dictate to the ONE country that financially covers the costs of it more than any other nation. If those countries don't like it, then they can pay the bills and we can go on our merry way.

third rate countries? bloody arrogant American! and you wonder why so much of the world hates you...Luckily I know there ARE nice Americans and they're not all like you.

Spark wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

In order for the US to become a signatory on any international legislation, doesn't Congress have to sign off on it? In which case it would become law in the United States.

I'm not sure it's a requirement, but no one would take it seriously otherwise, which effectively makes it a requisite.

CapnNismo wrote:

Spark wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

In order for the US to become a signatory on any international legislation, doesn't Congress have to sign off on it? In which case it would become law in the United States.

I'm not sure it's a requirement, but no one would take it seriously otherwise, which effectively makes it a requisite.

If I recall my old civics lessons from high school (it's been a while, though), then yes - anything that the US signs internationally has to be approved by Congress and that makes it binding. It doesn't make it US law, effectively, but the US is then accountable to the rest of the world.

Me? Personally? I'd love to see international law take the US to the cleaners. I think it would be nice to see George W Bush standing for war crime charges at the Hague.

lowing wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

Sorry, the US does not recognize international law over our own Constitution, it never has.  Third rate countries that make up the UN does not dictate to the ONE country that financially covers the costs of it more than any other nation. If those countries don't like it, then they can pay the bills and we can go on our merry way.

third rate countries? bloody arrogant American! and you wonder why so much of the world hates you...Luckily I know there ARE nice Americans and they're not all like you.

It has nothing to do with arrogance, it is simply a plain fact US citizens are NOT to governed by laws that DO NOT supersede the rights given to us by our Constitution and UN mandated BULLSHIT does not qualify

.......and you forgot to acknowledge that the evil US pretty much pays the bills for the UN. Don't expect the US to pay the bills only to receive rulings that are not in the best interests of the US. That would be kinda dumb wouldn't it Especially since the UN is by and large anti- US anyway. Why the hell we belong to such a corrupt organization I have no idea.

Honestly, if you do not like it, I would be more than happy to support your motion that the US be kicked out of the UN, just know with us goes ALL our money and the land of which that piece of shit organization sits.

Cybargs wrote:

lowing wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

third rate countries? bloody arrogant American! and you wonder why so much of the world hates you...Luckily I know there ARE nice Americans and they're not all like you.

It has nothing to do with arrogance, it is simply a plain fact US citizens are NOT to governed by laws that DO NOT supersede the rights given to us by our Constitution and UN mandated BULLSHIT does not qualify

.......and you forgot to acknowledge that the evil US pretty much pays the bills for the UN. Don't expect the US to pay the bills only to receive rulings that are not in the best interests of the US. That would be kinda dumb wouldn't it Especially since the UN is by and large anti- US anyway. Why the hell we belong to such a corrupt organization I have no idea.

Honestly, if you do not like it, I would be more than happy to support your motion that the US be kicked out of the UN, just know with us goes ALL our money and the land of which that piece of shit organization sits.

Lowing you are an idiot. You do realize the US is a major contributor to interpol?

lowing wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

third rate countries? bloody arrogant American! and you wonder why so much of the world hates you...Luckily I know there ARE nice Americans and they're not all like you.

Seriously, while the UN itself isn't even worthy of the third rate designation, the member nations are valued military and trade partners, come on Lowing, don't piss off the whole world.

For the most part no they are not. Only a select few major developed nations. But you think the US is supposed to be dictated to by countries like   or Yemen, or Syria, or equivalent countries, not hardly.

lowing wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Extradition treaty lel.

To lowing: If the US signs any international treaty, it is under US law as well you dumb fuck.

International laws have nothing to do with the UN, they can't pass anything that is legally binding (even the universal deceleration of human rights drafted by elenor roosevelt).

Stop worshiping the constitution like it's a deity.

Actually, I do not think that is correct. I do not remember a single case where a US citizen stood before an international court for crimes committed in the US. Nor do I recall a single case where a US citizen was not read his rights given to him under the US Constitution after being arrested. ( that wasn't thrown out)

lowing wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

lowing wrote:

Actually, I do not think that is correct. I do not remember a single case where a US citizen stood before an international court for crimes committed in the US. Nor do I recall a single case where a US citizen was not read his rights given to him under the US Constitution after being arrested. ( that wasn't thrown out)

There is no international court to deal with international criminals in the first place. Most of the cases are charged in the native country where the crime is done, or a US court, hence this is where the extradition treaty comes in.

If a US citizen commits a crime outside the US I am all for that person facing the laws of that country. However my point is, A US citizen that commits an act in the US that the international community deems a crime should not be processed and tried without the rights bestowed and the burden of proof demanded by the US Constitution. (and only If what the person did was a crime in the US to begin with)

Last edited by Spark (2010-01-14 04:34:47)