Obama gives foreign cops new police powers in U.S.

[MaggieMae]

Yet the EPA grows in Power and Authority.

And will one day rule the world. Yeah, sure. And what's up with the initial caps in everything you type? Mal's clone?

I'm so sorry that You find Liberty and Free Expression so distasteful Maggie. Initial caps on everything? Exaggerating a bit Sweetie? I cap to Accent. What has it been since the last time You brought it up? 3 Months? I am so glad for the interest You take in Me!

Just a hint, then, your capping is a distraction not an accentuation. Most people learn how to read in grammar school, and our eyes are therefore programmed to follow sentences correctly, not as though every other word begins a new sentence. So sorry you were insulted.

 

[ihopehefails]

After reading this article and all the replies I realize that most people here have the wrong idea about why this is so insidioiusly evil for American citizens. The supremacy clause states that the constitution (not any government BTW) is the supreme law of the land. That means within any American jurisdiction the constitution is higher than any legal authority in existence and that includes the federal government itself and under the 5th amendment it says that no person can have life, liberty, and property removed without the due process of law and the law that is speaking of is US law only so when Obama signs this he is saying that international law can now remove life, liberty, and property which is a violation of the constitution because any person, under US authority, can only have those things removed by US law only and not by any other law.

This act is a clear violation of the constitution if interpol can violate the 5th amendment because interpol does not have the legal right, under our constitution, to do so and if any of them come to arrest me then I have the legal right to blow their head off clean since I am being detained illegally.

BTW, the supremacy clause makes every citizen subject to American law only especially if it is on our own soil.

Fine, then let's just tell Interpol to butt out and we'll go it alone. The US is fully capable of brining down all terrorists all over the globe all by its own self.

And by the way, the written document which is The Constitution is at the mercy of whatever the United States Supreme Court decides.

The constitution of the federal government gives the supreme court limited jurisdiction for the purpose of providing a check on its power. Its jurisdiction is limited to about ten different scenarios that in can preside over. Now I admit the juridiction given to the supreme court gives it a pretty wide net but the fact that they defined it jurisdiction to certain cases means that it is possible for another court system to decide the meaning of the constitution that counters the federal judiciary.

That means that the supreme court is not the final decider on all things constitutional and since its jurisdiction does not include my or other people's opinion then any person can form whatever opinion about the constitution that they want.

 

[ihopehefails]

After reading this article and all the replies I realize that most people here have the wrong idea about why this is so insidioiusly evil for American citizens. The supremacy clause states that the constitution (not any government BTW) is the supreme law of the land. That means within any American jurisdiction the constitution is higher than any legal authority in existence and that includes the federal government itself and under the 5th amendment it says that no person can have life, liberty, and property removed without the due process of law and the law that is speaking of is US law only so when Obama signs this he is saying that international law can now remove life, liberty, and property which is a violation of the constitution because any person, under US authority, can only have those things removed by US law only and not by any other law.

This act is a clear violation of the constitution if interpol can violate the 5th amendment because interpol does not have the legal right, under our constitution, to do so and if any of them come to arrest me then I have the legal right to blow their head off clean since I am being detained illegally.

BTW, the supremacy clause makes every citizen subject to American law only especially if it is on our own soil.

Fine, then let's just tell Interpol to butt out and we'll go it alone. The US is fully capable of brining down all terrorists all over the globe all by its own self.

And by the way, the written document which is The Constitution is at the mercy of whatever the United States Supreme Court decides.

Its perfectly OK for interpol to do the same stuff you guys accused Bush of doing then under the patriot act? Will you support interpols own violations of the US constitution that you accused Bush of doing or is it different when the foreign government do it?

 

[Intense]

And will one day rule the world. Yeah, sure. And what's up with the initial caps in everything you type? Mal's clone?

I'm so sorry that You find Liberty and Free Expression so distasteful Maggie. Initial caps on everything? Exaggerating a bit Sweetie? I cap to Accent. What has it been since the last time You brought it up? 3 Months? I am so glad for the interest You take in Me!

Just a hint, then, your capping is a distraction not an accentuation. Most people learn how to read in grammar school, and our eyes are therefore programmed to follow sentences correctly, not as though every other word begins a new sentence. So sorry you were insulted.

Just a hint, I have no interest in how Your eyes are trained, now or then. Limit Yourself all You want, I've operated outside of the box of programed expectation Too Long now to change to please You. Considering all of the shit We All have to put up with in this life, you can do much better than nit pick me.

 

[Diuretic]

I agree with the cooperation but the international court can take a damned hike. I sure don't want some international court making the legal decisions for me in this country.

it was the international courts that prosecuted the nazis.

it IS the international courts that enable us to rely on others observing things like the Geneva Convention...and international treaties.

But the U.S. is supposed to be immune from that?

No one is making legal decisions FOR this country.

You wingnuts really need to get a grip.

Yes because any American citizen has rights garanteed to them by the constitution and our government should not make agreements that abridge those rights so that anyone and I mean anyone can be whisked off to another country and not get the same protectons of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that they would get in an American court.

Further, I did not agree to play by any of the rules set our by some foriegn court where I should be subject to.

Due process sometimes means extradition. That's the civilised way of doing things. It's achieved by treaties. Do you believe that a US citizen who allegedly commits a crime in another jurisdiction shouldn't be extradited to face trial in that jurisdiction?

 

[Annie]

it was the international courts that prosecuted the nazis.

it IS the international courts that enable us to rely on others observing things like the Geneva Convention...and international treaties.

But the U.S. is supposed to be immune from that?

No one is making legal decisions FOR this country.

You wingnuts really need to get a grip.

Yes because any American citizen has rights garanteed to them by the constitution and our government should not make agreements that abridge those rights so that anyone and I mean anyone can be whisked off to another country and not get the same protectons of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that they would get in an American court.

Further, I did not agree to play by any of the rules set our by some foriegn court where I should be subject to.

Due process sometimes means extradition. That's the civilised way of doing things. It's achieved by treaties. Do you believe that a US citizen who allegedly commits a crime in another jurisdiction shouldn't be extradited to face trial in that jurisdiction?

That's been done nearly since the inception of the country. The ICC is not like Nuremberg or extradition.

What the ICC is about is UN type justice, something that has no place in US.

 

[American Horse]

We are not talking about cooperation here. What we are talking about is that INTERPOL can now operate within the USA without any oversight from any US legal departments or Law Departments. They may make an arrest and remove the suspect from the country without any of our legal protections.

Interpol does not have jurisdiction in the United States. They cannot make arrests here. The International Criminal Court only exercises jurisdiction in nations that have freely agreed to allow it. The United States has never agreed to anything of the sort and this executive order does not do so either. All that's happened here is that we've chosen not to search their offices or arrest their agents. That's it. We have not granted them any powers. We've given them immunity. There's a difference.

Not the way I read it. But then I'm just a simple old Sergeant.

And see things as they are, not as you'd like them to be

 

[Diuretic]

Yes because any American citizen has rights garanteed to them by the constitution and our government should not make agreements that abridge those rights so that anyone and I mean anyone can be whisked off to another country and not get the same protectons of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that they would get in an American court.

Further, I did not agree to play by any of the rules set our by some foriegn court where I should be subject to.

Due process sometimes means extradition. That's the civilised way of doing things. It's achieved by treaties. Do you believe that a US citizen who allegedly commits a crime in another jurisdiction shouldn't be extradited to face trial in that jurisdiction?

That's been done nearly since the inception of the country. The ICC is not like Nuremberg or extradition.

What the ICC is about is UN type justice, something that has no place in US.

I'm confused. I know there's opposition to the ICC, not sure of the various reasons for that opposition though. But this is also about Interpol is it not? And Interpol is just an info exchange body.

 

[Annie]

Due process sometimes means extradition. That's the civilised way of doing things. It's achieved by treaties. Do you believe that a US citizen who allegedly commits a crime in another jurisdiction shouldn't be extradited to face trial in that jurisdiction?

That's been done nearly since the inception of the country. The ICC is not like Nuremberg or extradition.

What the ICC is about is UN type justice, something that has no place in US.

I'm confused. I know there's opposition to the ICC, not sure of the various reasons for that opposition though. But this is also about Interpol is it not? And Interpol is just an info exchange body.

It's not about Interpol or cooperation with that agency per se, rather about putting them beyond the reach of FBI and police while working on US soil. Our laws are supreme, HERE, not international law. Per the eo, they do not need to comply with our FOIA. In actuality it makes a foreign agency immune from American law on American soil. It's wrong.

 

[mudwhistle]

I think cooperation between friendly governments regarding terrorism is a good thing. I don't think opening the door to the International Courts is however. That is the problem.

I agree with the cooperation but the international court can take a damned hike. I sure don't want some international court making the legal decisions for me in this country.

yeah, cooperation is a one-way street.

Especially when it means cooperation with the Big Bad United States of America.

 

[MaggieMae]

After reading this article and all the replies I realize that most people here have the wrong idea about why this is so insidioiusly evil for American citizens. The supremacy clause states that the constitution (not any government BTW) is the supreme law of the land. That means within any American jurisdiction the constitution is higher than any legal authority in existence and that includes the federal government itself and under the 5th amendment it says that no person can have life, liberty, and property removed without the due process of law and the law that is speaking of is US law only so when Obama signs this he is saying that international law can now remove life, liberty, and property which is a violation of the constitution because any person, under US authority, can only have those things removed by US law only and not by any other law.

This act is a clear violation of the constitution if interpol can violate the 5th amendment because interpol does not have the legal right, under our constitution, to do so and if any of them come to arrest me then I have the legal right to blow their head off clean since I am being detained illegally.

BTW, the supremacy clause makes every citizen subject to American law only especially if it is on our own soil.

Fine, then let's just tell Interpol to butt out and we'll go it alone. The US is fully capable of brining down all terrorists all over the globe all by its own self.

And by the way, the written document which is The Constitution is at the mercy of whatever the United States Supreme Court decides.

The constitution of the federal government gives the supreme court limited jurisdiction for the purpose of providing a check on its power. Its jurisdiction is limited to about ten different scenarios that in can preside over. Now I admit the juridiction given to the supreme court gives it a pretty wide net but the fact that they defined it jurisdiction to certain cases means that it is possible for another court system to decide the meaning of the constitution that counters the federal judiciary.

That means that the supreme court is not the final decider on all things constitutional and since its jurisdiction does not include my or other people's opinion then any person can form whatever opinion about the constitution that they want.

Wrong wrong wrong. The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is.

 

[MaggieMae]

After reading this article and all the replies I realize that most people here have the wrong idea about why this is so insidioiusly evil for American citizens. The supremacy clause states that the constitution (not any government BTW) is the supreme law of the land. That means within any American jurisdiction the constitution is higher than any legal authority in existence and that includes the federal government itself and under the 5th amendment it says that no person can have life, liberty, and property removed without the due process of law and the law that is speaking of is US law only so when Obama signs this he is saying that international law can now remove life, liberty, and property which is a violation of the constitution because any person, under US authority, can only have those things removed by US law only and not by any other law.

This act is a clear violation of the constitution if interpol can violate the 5th amendment because interpol does not have the legal right, under our constitution, to do so and if any of them come to arrest me then I have the legal right to blow their head off clean since I am being detained illegally.

BTW, the supremacy clause makes every citizen subject to American law only especially if it is on our own soil.

Fine, then let's just tell Interpol to butt out and we'll go it alone. The US is fully capable of brining down all terrorists all over the globe all by its own self.

And by the way, the written document which is The Constitution is at the mercy of whatever the United States Supreme Court decides.

Its perfectly OK for interpol to do the same stuff you guys accused Bush of doing then under the patriot act? Will you support interpols own violations of the US constitution that you accused Bush of doing or is it different when the foreign government do it?

Huh? I never saw anyone complaining about Interpol's cooperation with our own intelligence agencies during the Bush Administration. Now you're just making up shit.

 

[MaggieMae]

it was the international courts that prosecuted the nazis.

it IS the international courts that enable us to rely on others observing things like the Geneva Convention...and international treaties.

But the U.S. is supposed to be immune from that?

No one is making legal decisions FOR this country.

You wingnuts really need to get a grip.

Yes because any American citizen has rights garanteed to them by the constitution and our government should not make agreements that abridge those rights so that anyone and I mean anyone can be whisked off to another country and not get the same protectons of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that they would get in an American court.

Further, I did not agree to play by any of the rules set our by some foriegn court where I should be subject to.

Due process sometimes means extradition. That's the civilised way of doing things. It's achieved by treaties. Do you believe that a US citizen who allegedly commits a crime in another jurisdiction shouldn't be extradited to face trial in that jurisdiction?

Ihope seems to think laws, rules, treaties and the like should all be designed with him in mind, whereas in a democracy (a democratic Republic in our case), most laws, etc., are intended to resolve problems and conflicts that concern the greater majority of everyone by our Constitutionally elected officials. Short of polling every citizen for input, he's expecting the impossible.

 

[MaggieMae]

Yes because any American citizen has rights garanteed to them by the constitution and our government should not make agreements that abridge those rights so that anyone and I mean anyone can be whisked off to another country and not get the same protectons of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that they would get in an American court.

Further, I did not agree to play by any of the rules set our by some foriegn court where I should be subject to.

Due process sometimes means extradition. That's the civilised way of doing things. It's achieved by treaties. Do you believe that a US citizen who allegedly commits a crime in another jurisdiction shouldn't be extradited to face trial in that jurisdiction?

That's been done nearly since the inception of the country. The ICC is not like Nuremberg or extradition.

What the ICC is about is UN type justice, something that has no place in US.

Of course you might feel differently if, say, Mexico decided to invade Texas and try to take it back, committing genocide of Americans in the process. After the dust settled, you wouldn't want any Mexicans tried and convicted of war crimes?

 

[MaggieMae]

That's been done nearly since the inception of the country. The ICC is not like Nuremberg or extradition.

What the ICC is about is UN type justice, something that has no place in US.

I'm confused. I know there's opposition to the ICC, not sure of the various reasons for that opposition though. But this is also about Interpol is it not? And Interpol is just an info exchange body.

It's not about Interpol or cooperation with that agency per se, rather about putting them beyond the reach of FBI and police while working on US soil. Our laws are supreme, HERE, not international law. Per the eo, they do not need to comply with our FOIA. In actuality it makes a foreign agency immune from American law on American soil. It's wrong.

So are you against foreign embassies that operate independently on our soil? They provide sanctuary for criminals commiting crimes while in the United States. And then there's diplomatic immunity where even Saddam Hussein would have been untouchable if he had decided to rape and kill your daughter.

 

[Intense]

it was the international courts that prosecuted the nazis.

it IS the international courts that enable us to rely on others observing things like the Geneva Convention...and international treaties.

But the U.S. is supposed to be immune from that?

No one is making legal decisions FOR this country.

You wingnuts really need to get a grip.

Yes because any American citizen has rights garanteed to them by the constitution and our government should not make agreements that abridge those rights so that anyone and I mean anyone can be whisked off to another country and not get the same protectons of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that they would get in an American court.

Further, I did not agree to play by any of the rules set our by some foriegn court where I should be subject to.

Due process sometimes means extradition. That's the civilised way of doing things. It's achieved by treaties. Do you believe that a US citizen who allegedly commits a crime in another jurisdiction shouldn't be extradited to face trial in that jurisdiction?

Through the Legal Process, not around it.

 

[Intense]

Fine, then let's just tell Interpol to butt out and we'll go it alone. The US is fully capable of brining down all terrorists all over the globe all by its own self.

And by the way, the written document which is The Constitution is at the mercy of whatever the United States Supreme Court decides.

The constitution of the federal government gives the supreme court limited jurisdiction for the purpose of providing a check on its power. Its jurisdiction is limited to about ten different scenarios that in can preside over. Now I admit the juridiction given to the supreme court gives it a pretty wide net but the fact that they defined it jurisdiction to certain cases means that it is possible for another court system to decide the meaning of the constitution that counters the federal judiciary.

That means that the supreme court is not the final decider on all things constitutional and since its jurisdiction does not include my or other people's opinion then any person can form whatever opinion about the constitution that they want.

Wrong wrong wrong. The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is.

For Now. Payback is a real Bitch though. Justice will prevail in the end.

 

[Intense]

Yes because any American citizen has rights garanteed to them by the constitution and our government should not make agreements that abridge those rights so that anyone and I mean anyone can be whisked off to another country and not get the same protectons of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that they would get in an American court.

Further, I did not agree to play by any of the rules set our by some foriegn court where I should be subject to.

Due process sometimes means extradition. That's the civilised way of doing things. It's achieved by treaties. Do you believe that a US citizen who allegedly commits a crime in another jurisdiction shouldn't be extradited to face trial in that jurisdiction?

Ihope seems to think laws, rules, treaties and the like should all be designed with him in mind, whereas in a democracy (a democratic Republic in our case), most laws, etc., are intended to resolve problems and conflicts that concern the greater majority of everyone by our Constitutionally elected officials. Short of polling every citizen for input, he's expecting the impossible.

Fits right in with Unalienable Rights, and Habeas Corpus. LOL

There is something wrong with Any Society that has No place for Conscience. Conscience is Rooted in the Individual, not the Group. Keep beating on it though. Locke, Madison, Jefferson, Thoreau, King, Ghandi, would have little in common with the disconnect in Your Ethics.

 

[Intense]

I'm confused. I know there's opposition to the ICC, not sure of the various reasons for that opposition though. But this is also about Interpol is it not? And Interpol is just an info exchange body.

It's not about Interpol or cooperation with that agency per se, rather about putting them beyond the reach of FBI and police while working on US soil. Our laws are supreme, HERE, not international law. Per the eo, they do not need to comply with our FOIA. In actuality it makes a foreign agency immune from American law on American soil. It's wrong.

So are you against foreign embassies that operate independently on our soil? They provide sanctuary for criminals commiting crimes while in the United States. And then there's diplomatic immunity where even Saddam Hussein would have been untouchable if he had decided to rape and kill your daughter.

Foreign Embassies are outside of Our Jurisdiction, We all play by agreed rules there. A Murderer and Rapist with diplomatic immunity is beyond the reach of the Law, that is far from untouchable. Consider also, They may be expelled though through due process.

 

[MaggieMae]

Due process sometimes means extradition. That's the civilised way of doing things. It's achieved by treaties. Do you believe that a US citizen who allegedly commits a crime in another jurisdiction shouldn't be extradited to face trial in that jurisdiction?

Ihope seems to think laws, rules, treaties and the like should all be designed with him in mind, whereas in a democracy (a democratic Republic in our case), most laws, etc., are intended to resolve problems and conflicts that concern the greater majority of everyone by our Constitutionally elected officials. Short of polling every citizen for input, he's expecting the impossible.

Fits right in with Unalienable Rights, and Habeas Corpus. LOL

There is something wrong with Any Society that has No place for Conscience. Conscience is Rooted in the Individual, not the Group. Keep beating on it though. Locke, Madison, Jefferson, Thoreau, King, Ghandi, would have little in common with the disconnect in Your Ethics.

The Constitution and the USSC has zero to do with ethics. And I love it when one person of a particular political persuasion has the balls to accuse the opposition of being unethical. Did you just climb out from under a rock?

And btw, I had to read your short posting twice in order to absorb the context because it flows like separated sentences. You might as well know anything longer than that one will go unread by me. I don't do anything that takes twice as long these days.