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

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)

Interpol only deals with crimes on an international level in the first place... So what exactly is your problem with them?

Cybargs wrote:

lowing wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

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)

Interpol only deals with crimes on an international level in the first place... So what exactly is your problem with them?

I do not want them here in the US beating down doors. US citizens have rights and are protected under our Constitution. If all we are talking about is information sharing I have no problem with it.

If a US citizen broke a law in the another country and makes it back to US soil, due process for extradition is required, not interpol showing up and hauling him away. As an example.

Last edited by lowing (2010-01-14 04:43:19)

Cybargs wrote:

lowing wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Interpol only deals with crimes on an international level in the first place... So what exactly is your problem with them?

I do not want them here in the US beating down doors. US citizens have rights and are protected under our Constitution. If all we are talking about is information sharing I have no problem with it.

If a US citizen broke a law in the another country and makes it back to US soil, due process for extradition is required, not interpol showing up and hauling him away. As an example.

Heres what interpol does. If a US citizen commit a killing in let say the UK, and ran off to the US, local authorities will work with interpol and bring him to the UK for criminal charges (as per extradition treaty).

Interpol doesnt just go up to a random city and say "imah take over the policing here." They don't even have the resources for that shit. And yes most of the stuff they do is information sharing and providing assistance if asked by the local authorities.

As long as what is done is covered by the extradition treaty and the US has been sufficiently convinced by the evidence of the case.

Cybargs wrote:

lowing wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Heres what interpol does. If a US citizen commit a killing in let say the UK, and ran off to the US, local authorities will work with interpol and bring him to the UK for criminal charges (as per extradition treaty).

Interpol doesnt just go up to a random city and say "imah take over the policing here." They don't even have the resources for that shit. And yes most of the stuff they do is information sharing and providing assistance if asked by the local authorities.

As long as what is done is covered by the extradition treaty and the US has been sufficiently convinced by the evidence of the case.

They can't operate without following the extradition treaty in the first place... So you can sleep at night now.

Always do

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)

since the US is pretty damn hypocritical when it comes to enforcing human rights that's hardly surprising. plenty of times where the US has refused to allow US citizens to be tried against HR while insisting they can prosecute anyone they want. And let's not forget gitmo.

ruisleipa 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)

since the US is pretty damn hypocritical when it comes to enforcing human rights that's hardly surprising. plenty of times where the US has refused to allow US citizens to be tried against HR while insisting they can prosecute anyone they want. And let's not forget gitmo.

Who have "we prosecuted anyone we want"?
Ok so we agree, I am correct in that as a US citizen I have rights that are NOT superseded by any international law. thanks for clarifying.

FEOS wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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.

Wrong. The government that runs Afghanistan right now has a Constitution and was elected by the population. It has a status of forces agreement with the US and NATO which means that it has requested X number of troops to be there to perform Y activities on behalf of said Constitutional government.

So I say again: any Afghan citizens attacking foreign troops who are there legally are performing illegal acts against their own government. Bad analogy on Brad's part.

The elections were put in place by foreign forces. The constitution was put in by foreign forces. You could say that in the eyes of some the government is completely illegitimate because of that. I'm just playing devils advocate here. We're essentially at the request of a government we put in there after invading in the first place.

Even the Soviets had governmental backing before they arrived, we did it the other way round. Not saying whether I think this is all good/bad, but just saying as it is.

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.

No, perfect choice of analogy. I was using Afghani militants as an example to highlight the error in lowing's logic. Does Interpol not have an agreement with the democratically elected President of the United States? Therefore, if lowing were to not submit to Interpol's powers (insofar as their remit extends) he would be acting against the laws and wishes of his own Government.

But getting back to the issue of foreign troops in Afghanistan, the troops may be there NOW at the request of the incumbent Government but the initial invasion certainly wasn't invited. Furthermore, the incumbent regime in Afghanistan is shady at best; Karzai is a de facto American puppet who was waiting in the wings as the first bombs were dropping throughout the country. The last election showed him up to be the 'leader' he truly is, with even the Americans questioning the legitimacy of his vote count. Afghanistan has always lacked strong central Government. They never even had a united central Government before the invasion, they were split between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance (which itself is a collection of distinct factions). The thing about democracy is it can be a bit of a slippery fish if only a small percentage of the population are paying any attention to it.

Last edited by Braddock (2010-01-15 05:29:23)

Cybargs wrote:

ruisleipa 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)

since the US is pretty damn hypocritical when it comes to enforcing human rights that's hardly surprising. plenty of times where the US has refused to allow US citizens to be tried against HR while insisting they can prosecute anyone they want. And let's not forget gitmo.

You are an idiot. Gitmo is actually pretty nice.

I hear it's lovely, is it true Obama wants to turn it into a holiday camp?

I love how people who have never set foot inside a place talk about how 'lovely' and 'not so bad' it is. Even if there was no water-torture, noise torture, sleep-deprivation, or ritual humiliation in Guantanamo bay (which, in my own opinion, I personally believe there probably is), the way in which the place is used and the way in which it refuses to recognise International rights and laws is ethically unsound.

I find it rich that some Americans in here find it disgraceful that they would have to recognise the authority of a foreign agency (even one that has an agreement with the US Government), while at the same time believing that the US has the right to abduct and detain anyone they like for an indefinite amount of time.

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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.

No, perfect choice of analogy. I was using Afghani militants as an example to highlight the error in lowing's logic. Does Interpol not have an agreement with the democratically elected President of the United States? Therefore, if lowing were to not submit to Interpol's powers (insofar as their remit extends) he would be acting against the laws and wishes of his own Government.

You weren't referring to Interpol, you were referring to troops. Interpol is a police organization, not a military.

The example still holds. The central premise of the argument was that a person might view their own constitutional rights as superceding those of any other foreign agency (be it military or police) and therefore might choose not to recognise said foreign agency. While lowing might refuse to recognise Interpol's authority, an Afghani might refuse to recognise the US military's authority (even though both have an agreement with the incumbent Government of each nation).

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

But getting back to the issue of foreign troops in Afghanistan, the troops may be there NOW at the request of the incumbent Government but the initial invasion certainly wasn't invited. Furthermore, the incumbent regime in Afghanistan is shady at best; Karzai is a de facto American puppet who was waiting in the wings as the first bombs were dropping throughout the country. The last election showed him up to be the 'leader' he truly is. Afghanistan has always lacked strong central Government. They never even had a united central Government before the invasion, they were split between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance (which itself is a collection of distinct factions). The thing about democracy is it can be a bit of a slippery fish if only a small percentage of the population are paying any attention to it.

Look at the polls. Then come back and see if current > previous. There is far more than a "small percentage of the population" paying attention to it.

Regardless, your points have already been covered. They may have been valid in 2001 or 2002 or so. But since there have been a couple of election cycles--and I would argue especially with acknowledged and mitigated problems--that government is truly one of, by, and for the Afghan people. Karzai's issues in having to put together a workable Cabinet are proof enough of that.

Karzai's last election vote count was as bent as a $9 note... everyone saw it that way. The challenger refused to run again so Karzai got elected by default, now all of a sudden a poll is released that shows his popularity is going through the roof? Forgive me for being sceptical but only 1,500 people were surveyed in that poll. In a country like Afghanistan opinions and views can vary greatly from one village to the next. I don't know the exact details of the survey but given that Afghanistan is such a difficult region to navigate I'd question whether the areas from which the sample group was made up can be considered in any way indicative of the country as a whole. Furthermore, with corruption being such a big issue in elections I wouldn't be the least bit shocked to find that polls were being manipulated also.

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

You are an idiot. Gitmo is actually pretty nice.

I hear it's lovely, is it true Obama wants to turn it into a holiday camp?

I love how people who have never set foot inside a place talk about how 'lovely' and 'not so bad' it is. Even if there was no water-torture, noise torture, sleep-deprivation, or ritual humiliation in Guantanamo bay (which, in my own opinion, I personally believe there probably is), the way in which the place is used and the way in which it refuses to recognise International rights and laws is ethically unsound.

I find it rich that some Americans in here find it disgraceful that they would have to recognise the authority of a foreign agency (even one that has an agreement with the US Government), while at the same time believing that the US has the right to abduct and detain anyone they like for an indefinite amount of time.

Braddock wrote:

I love how people who have never set foot inside a place talk about how

Braddock wrote:

the place is used and the way in which it refuses to recognise International rights and laws is ethically unsound.

Irony.
Or is that hypocrisy?

What are you on about?

To be able to talk about how 'nice' a place is you have to see it for yourself... you do not however have to spend a fortnight in Guantanamo bay to assert that people from countries all over the world are being brought there and detained without due process. That's not even up for debate... what's up for debate is what goes on inside the place.

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

I hear it's lovely, is it true Obama wants to turn it into a holiday camp?

I love how people who have never set foot inside a place talk about how 'lovely' and 'not so bad' it is. Even if there was no water-torture, noise torture, sleep-deprivation, or ritual humiliation in Guantanamo bay (which, in my own opinion, I personally believe there probably is), the way in which the place is used and the way in which it refuses to recognise International rights and laws is ethically unsound.

I find it rich that some Americans in here find it disgraceful that they would have to recognise the authority of a foreign agency (even one that has an agreement with the US Government), while at the same time believing that the US has the right to abduct and detain anyone they like for an indefinite amount of time.

Braddock wrote:

I love how people who have never set foot inside a place talk about how

Braddock wrote:

the place is used and the way in which it refuses to recognise International rights and laws is ethically unsound.

Irony.
Or is that hypocrisy?

What are you on about?

To be able to talk about how 'nice' a place is you have to see it for yourself... you do not however have to spend a fortnight in Guantanamo bay to assert that people from countries all over the world are being brought there and detained without due process. That's not even up for debate... what's up for debate is what goes on inside the place.

Yes it is sooooooo terrible that they do not want to leave Gitmo for OBAMA approved prisons in the US
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini … 11687.html

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

No, perfect choice of analogy. I was using Afghani militants as an example to highlight the error in lowing's logic. Does Interpol not have an agreement with the democratically elected President of the United States? Therefore, if lowing were to not submit to Interpol's powers (insofar as their remit extends) he would be acting against the laws and wishes of his own Government.

You weren't referring to Interpol, you were referring to troops. Interpol is a police organization, not a military.

The example still holds. The central premise of the argument was that a person might view their own constitutional rights as superceding those of any other foreign agency (be it military or police) and therefore might choose not to recognise said foreign agency. While lowing might refuse to recognise Interpol's authority, an Afghani might refuse to recognise the US military's authority (even though both have an agreement with the incumbent Government of each nation).

There is nuance there. Interpol wouldn't have autonomous authority, just as the US military doesn't have autonomous authority in Afghanistan.

Each of those organizations is working with the host nation's respective law enforcement/military in everything they do.

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Look at the polls. Then come back and see if current > previous. There is far more than a "small percentage of the population" paying attention to it.

Regardless, your points have already been covered. They may have been valid in 2001 or 2002 or so. But since there have been a couple of election cycles--and I would argue especially with acknowledged and mitigated problems--that government is truly one of, by, and for the Afghan people. Karzai's issues in having to put together a workable Cabinet are proof enough of that.

Karzai's last election vote count was as bent as a $9 note... everyone saw it that way. The challenger refused to run again so Karzai got elected by default, now all of a sudden a poll is released that shows his popularity is going through the roof? Forgive me for being sceptical but only 1,500 people were surveyed in that poll. In a country like Afghanistan opinions and views can vary greatly from one village to the next. I don't know the exact details of the survey but given that Afghanistan is such a difficult region to navigate I'd question whether the areas from which the sample group was made up can be considered in any way indicative of the country as a whole. Furthermore, with corruption being such a big issue in elections I wouldn't be the least bit shocked to find that polls were being manipulated also.

What poll are you talking about? I didn't provide it, so don't throw it in my face. There are literally dozens if not hundreds of polls being taken country-wide to assess the feelings of the population as a whole and everything is trending up. And, as has been said before, while political corruption is certainly not something to dismiss, a certain amount is also a normal part of the culture there and that must be taken into account.

As to Karzai's vote count...those ridiculous vote counts were in Taliban-influenced areas. Nobody has even asked the question if the Taliban stuffed the ballots in favor of Karzai on purpose to cast doubt on the election. Again...certainly what I would've done had I been a Taliban commander in the region.

This is the poll I was talking about.

I know corruption is a huge issue in that country and I'm not saying it doesn't swing both ways. Karzai is most likely not alone in his corruption, but given that the US has held him up as the de facto poster boy of post-Taliban democracy his allegations (which were made by several world leaders and monitoring bodies) make the entire war seem like a bit of a Pyrrhic victory.

As for the allegation that the Taliban carried out a huge voter drive in favour of Karzai? Well, I guess anything is possible but my bet would be that they'd sooner just intimidate people into not voting.