Arrest warrant for Cheney “will be issued and transmitted through Interpol"

[DiveCon]

Obama/Holder isn't pursuing anything either, and will not honor a warrant against a former Vice President.

No one thinks that he would. What it proves is the entire world thinks Dick Cheney is rotten. The only ones that don't are Republicans.

Has anyone noticed how Republicans take one position and the rest of the world takes another?

Considering that only 6% of American scientists are Republican, it suggests how likely the right is, well, "right".

What's your justification for that 6% number?

a pew poll of a pro-AGW group
LOL

 

[sangha]

Aren't the same people who're laughing at this calling for Interpol to apprehend Assange?

So we want Interpol to do its job when it's someone the talking heads tell us is the enemy?

We want people who actually commit crimes to be investigated and arrested by proper police authorities.

We do not want purely political judgments passed-off as law enforcement.

Is that really difficult for you to grasp?

YOu want to only investigate the people who actually commit crimes?? How do you know who actually committed the crimes if you don't investigate?

And Interpol doesn't apprehend criminals.

 

[Liability]

Aren't the same people who're laughing at this calling for Interpol to apprehend Assange?

So we want Interpol to do its job when it's someone the talking heads tell us is the enemy?

We want people who actually commit crimes to be investigated and arrested by proper police authorities.

We do not want purely political judgments passed-off as law enforcement.

Is that really difficult for you to grasp?

YOu want to only investigate the people who actually commit crimes?? How do you know who actually committed the crimes if you don't investigate?

And Interpol doesn't apprehend criminals.

I want the investigation to be for actual crimes, in the first place. And any of those podunk bullshit nations are always free to "investigate" whatever they choose to "investigate." A warrant to "arrest" our former V.P. is not needed for such an alleged "investigation," however. Surely, even a goober such as you has to be able to grasp THAT much.

And Interpol may not (themselves) be able to arrest anybody, but they can and do put out wanted cards and warrants upon which law enforcement authorities can make such arrests. So the distinction you quibble about is quite trivial. No surprise.

 

[sangha]

We want people who actually commit crimes to be investigated and arrested by proper police authorities.

We do not want purely political judgments passed-off as law enforcement.

Is that really difficult for you to grasp?

YOu want to only investigate the people who actually commit crimes?? How do you know who actually committed the crimes if you don't investigate?

And Interpol doesn't apprehend criminals.

I want the investigation to be for actual crimes, in the first place. And any of those podunk bullshit nations are always free to "investigate" whatever they choose to "investigate." A warrant to "arrest" our former V.P. is not needed for such an alleged investigation," however. Surely, even a goober such as you has to be able to grasp THAT much.

And Interpol may not (themselves) be able to arrest anybody, but they can and do put out wanted cards and warrants upon which law enforcement authorities can make such arrests. So the distinction you quibble about is quite trivial. No surprise.

In wingnut world, bribery isn't an "actual crime"

 

[Mini 14]

In response, Cheney hires a new lawyer to lead his defense team:

 

[Liability]

YOu want to only investigate the people who actually commit crimes?? How do you know who actually committed the crimes if you don't investigate?

And Interpol doesn't apprehend criminals.

I want the investigation to be for actual crimes, in the first place. And any of those podunk bullshit nations are always free to "investigate" whatever they choose to "investigate." A warrant to "arrest" our former V.P. is not needed for such an alleged investigation," however. Surely, even a goober such as you has to be able to grasp THAT much.

And Interpol may not (themselves) be able to arrest anybody, but they can and do put out wanted cards and warrants upon which law enforcement authorities can make such arrests. So the distinction you quibble about is quite trivial. No surprise.

In wingnut world, bribery isn't an "actual crime"

Maybe bribery isn't an actual crime in your world. But it would be a crime in many nations of this world.

That is a far cry from the claim that V.P. Cheney was involved in any alleged bribery over there. And, if a private citizen engages in conduct which could (in theory) make out the elements of that crime, that is not necessarily the same as one of the heads of state of a sovereign nation engaging in such alleged conduct.

If those same podunk accusers were to claim that Saint Obama of Hawaii had engaged in some conduct amounting to (in their humble estimation) "bribery," then you would ENDORSE an Interpol red card for the arrest of President Obama?

 

[sangha]

I want the investigation to be for actual crimes, in the first place. And any of those podunk bullshit nations are always free to "investigate" whatever they choose to "investigate." A warrant to "arrest" our former V.P. is not needed for such an alleged investigation," however. Surely, even a goober such as you has to be able to grasp THAT much.

And Interpol may not (themselves) be able to arrest anybody, but they can and do put out wanted cards and warrants upon which law enforcement authorities can make such arrests. So the distinction you quibble about is quite trivial. No surprise.

In wingnut world, bribery isn't an "actual crime"

Maybe bribery isn't an actual crime in your world. But it would be a crime in many nations of this world.

That is a far cry from the claim that V.P. Cheney was involved in any alleged bribery over there. And, if a private citizen engages in conduct which could (in theory) make out the elements of that crime, that is not necessarily the same as one of the heads of state of a sovereign nation engaging in such alleged conduct.

If those same podunk accusers were to claim that Saint Obama of Hawaii had engaged in some conduct amounting to (in their humble estimation) "bribery," then you would ENDORSE an Interpol red card for the arrest of President Obama?

In wingnut world, Cheney being charged with bribery is "a far cry from the claim that VP CHeney was involved in any alleged bribery"

I guess I'll help the illiterate wingnut and point out that Cheney isn't being accused of bribery while he was VPOTUS. You either made that up, or are too dumb to know what Cheney is accused of doing, and when.

 

[Liability]

In wingnut world, bribery isn't an "actual crime"

Maybe bribery isn't an actual crime in your world. But it would be a crime in many nations of this world.

That is a far cry from the claim that V.P. Cheney was involved in any alleged bribery over there. And, if a private citizen engages in conduct which could (in theory) make out the elements of that crime, that is not necessarily the same as one of the heads of state of a sovereign nation engaging in such alleged conduct.

If those same podunk accusers were to claim that Saint Obama of Hawaii had engaged in some conduct amounting to (in their humble estimation) "bribery," then you would ENDORSE an Interpol red card for the arrest of President Obama?

In wingnut world, Cheney being charged with bribery is "a far cry from the claim that VP CHeney was involved in any alleged bribery"

I guess I'll help the illiterate wingnut and point out that Cheney isn't being accused of bribery while he was VPOTUS. You either made that up, or are too dumb to know what Cheney is accused of doing, and when.

No. You are the wingnut, and in your world, based on your last incoherent but ultimately retarded post, it appears that you believe (you being a classic dumbass far left wingnut) that being charged with bribery is the same as having committed any crime. But you are indeed retarded and " ."

Now I must give one to you. The allegations do seem to involve allegations of bribery that happened BEFORE Vice President Cheney became Vice President.

What do you imagine the statute of limitations is for the "crime(s)"
which are being considered as chargeable against Mr. Cheney?

 

[sangha]

Now I must give one to you. The allegations do seem to involve allegations of bribery that happened BEFORE Vice President Cheney became Vice President.

What do you imagine the statute of limitations is for the "crime(s)"
which are being considered as chargeable against Mr. Cheney?

1) The allegations don't "seem to" involve allegations of bribery that happened BEFORE Vice President Cheney became Vice President; The ACTUALLY DO involve allegations of bribery that happened BEFORE Vice President Cheney became Vice President

2) SoL's are different from one country to the next, not that I expect you to know that. You don't even know that bribery is a real crime

 

[Liability]

Now I must give one to you. The allegations do seem to involve allegations of bribery that happened BEFORE Vice President Cheney became Vice President.

What do you imagine the statute of limitations is for the "crime(s)"
which are being considered as chargeable against Mr. Cheney?

1) The allegations don't "seem to" involve allegations of bribery that happened BEFORE Vice President Cheney became Vice President; The ACTUALLY DO involve allegations of bribery that happened BEFORE Vice President Cheney became Vice President

2) SoL's are different from one country to the next, not that I expect you to know that. You don't even know that bribery is a real crime

As I said, I was obliged to give you one. It does appear that the allegations of bribery preceded Mr. Cheney's tenure as Vice President. You have my permission to quibble about HOW I agreed with you, but as everyone who isn't a fucking asshole (like you) can plainly see, I had just agreed with you on that point. You jerk-off.

And I know that Statutes of Limitation vary from country to country, scum-sucker. Everyone knows that. Hell, even a retard like you has gathered as much. That's why I asked you to imagine what those Statute of Limitations might be. Let' me give you a hint, shit-muncher. It goes a little like this. I have very good reason to believe that the Nigerian FELONY of "treason" comes with a two year statute of limitation, So, now, given that morsel of information (which even a fubar like you should be able to verify pretty easily), does it seem likely to you that they made the statute of limitations for bribery and/or for "conspiracy" longer, the same length or shorter?

By the way, you incredible idiot, we all know that bribery is a real crime. What we don't know is whether Mr. Cheney was actually implicated in reality in any alleged Haliburton bribery over there in Nigeria. Once again (since you are truly quite stupid): there is a HUGE difference between some schmuck CLAIMING that Mr. Cheney committed a crime and Mr. Cheney actually having committed any crime. Anybody can SAY anything. hell, you've said all manner of stupid ass bullshit, but the fact that YOU make retarded claims doesn't make anything you say true in the real world, shit-breath.

 

[sangha]

Now I must give one to you. The allegations do seem to involve allegations of bribery that happened BEFORE Vice President Cheney became Vice President.

What do you imagine the statute of limitations is for the "crime(s)"
which are being considered as chargeable against Mr. Cheney?

1) The allegations don't "seem to" involve allegations of bribery that happened BEFORE Vice President Cheney became Vice President; The ACTUALLY DO involve allegations of bribery that happened BEFORE Vice President Cheney became Vice President

2) SoL's are different from one country to the next, not that I expect you to know that. You don't even know that bribery is a real crime

As I said, I was obliged to give you one. It does appear that the allegations of bribery preceded Mr. Cheney's tenure as Vice President. You have my permission to quibble about HOW I agreed with you, but as everyone who isn't a fucking asshole (like you) can plainly see, I had just agreed with you on that point. You jerk-off.

And I know that Statutes of Limitation vary from country to country, scum-sucker. Everyone knows that. Hell, even a retard like you has gathered as much. That's why I asked you to imagine what those Statute of Limitations might be. Let' me give you a hint, shit-muncher. It goes a little like this. I have very good reason to believe that the Nigerian FELONY of "treason" comes with a two year statute of limitation, So, now, given that morsel of information (which even a fubar like you should be able to verify pretty easily), does it seem likely to you that they made the statute of limitations for bribery and/or for "conspiracy" longer, the same length or shorter?

By the way, you incredible idiot, we all know that bribery is a real crime. What we don't know is whether Mr. Cheney was actually implicated in reality in any alleged Haliburton bribery over there in Nigeria. Once again (since you are truly quite stupid): there is a HUGE difference between some schmuck CLAIMING that Mr. Cheney committed a crime and Mr. Cheney actually having committed any crime. Anybody can SAY anything. hell, you've said all manner of stupid ass bullshit, but the fact that YOU make retarded claims doesn't make anything you say true in the real world, shit-breath.

Wrong. It does not merely "appear" that way; It *IS* that way. It has nothing to do with his actions as VP. You just can't admit it so you hide behind weasel words like "it appears"

WRT SoL's, there is actually NO LIMIT when the perp has taken actions to keep his crimes from being uncovered

Most jurisdictions provide that limitations are tolled under certain circumstances. Tolling will prevent the time for filing suit from running while the condition exists. Examples of such circumstances are if the aggrieved party (plaintiff) is a minor, or the plaintiff has filed a bankruptcy proceeding. In those instances, in most jurisdictions, the running of limitations is tolled until the circumstance (i.e., the injured party reaches majority in the former or the bankruptcy proceeding is concluded in the latter) no longer exists.

There may be a number of factors that will affect the tolling of a statute of limitations. In many cases, the discovery of the harm (as in a medical malpractice claim where the fact or the impact of the doctor's mistake is not immediately apparent) starts the statute running. In some jurisdictions the action is said to have not accrued until the harm is discovered; in others, the action accrues when the malpractice occurs, but an action to redress the harm is tolled until the injured party discovers the harm.

And them there's the Continuing Violations Doctrine

Continuing violations doctrine
In tort law, if a defendant commits a series of illegal acts against another person, there is no statute of limitations. In the 8th Circuit case of Treanor v. MCI Telecommunications, Inc.', the court explained that the continuing violations doctrine "tolls the statute of limitations in situations where a continuing pattern forms due to [illegal] acts occurring over a period of time, as long as at least one incident of [tort] occurred within the limitations period."[1]

 

[Liability]

1) The allegations don't "seem to" involve allegations of bribery that happened BEFORE Vice President Cheney became Vice President; The ACTUALLY DO involve allegations of bribery that happened BEFORE Vice President Cheney became Vice President

2) SoL's are different from one country to the next, not that I expect you to know that. You don't even know that bribery is a real crime

As I said, I was obliged to give you one. It does appear that the allegations of bribery preceded Mr. Cheney's tenure as Vice President. You have my permission to quibble about HOW I agreed with you, but as everyone who isn't a fucking asshole (like you) can plainly see, I had just agreed with you on that point. You jerk-off.

And I know that Statutes of Limitation vary from country to country, scum-sucker. Everyone knows that. Hell, even a retard like you has gathered as much. That's why I asked you to imagine what those Statute of Limitations might be. Let' me give you a hint, shit-muncher. It goes a little like this. I have very good reason to believe that the Nigerian FELONY of "treason" comes with a two year statute of limitation, So, now, given that morsel of information (which even a fubar like you should be able to verify pretty easily), does it seem likely to you that they made the statute of limitations for bribery and/or for "conspiracy" longer, the same length or shorter?

By the way, you incredible idiot, we all know that bribery is a real crime. What we don't know is whether Mr. Cheney was actually implicated in reality in any alleged Haliburton bribery over there in Nigeria. Once again (since you are truly quite stupid): there is a HUGE difference between some schmuck CLAIMING that Mr. Cheney committed a crime and Mr. Cheney actually having committed any crime. Anybody can SAY anything. hell, you've said all manner of stupid ass bullshit, but the fact that YOU make retarded claims doesn't make anything you say true in the real world, shit-breath.

Wrong. It does not merely "appear" that way; It *IS* that way. It has nothing to do with his actions as VP. You just can't admit it so you hide behind weasel words like "it appears"

WRT SoL's, there is actually NO LIMIT when the perp has taken actions to keep his crimes from being uncovered

Most jurisdictions provide that limitations are tolled under certain circumstances. Tolling will prevent the time for filing suit from running while the condition exists. Examples of such circumstances are if the aggrieved party (plaintiff) is a minor, or the plaintiff has filed a bankruptcy proceeding. In those instances, in most jurisdictions, the running of limitations is tolled until the circumstance (i.e., the injured party reaches majority in the former or the bankruptcy proceeding is concluded in the latter) no longer exists.

There may be a number of factors that will affect the tolling of a statute of limitations. In many cases, the discovery of the harm (as in a medical malpractice claim where the fact or the impact of the doctor's mistake is not immediately apparent) starts the statute running. In some jurisdictions the action is said to have not accrued until the harm is discovered; in others, the action accrues when the malpractice occurs, but an action to redress the harm is tolled until the injured party discovers the harm.

And them there's the Continuing Violations Doctrine

Continuing violations doctrine
In tort law, if a defendant commits a series of illegal acts against another person, there is no statute of limitations. In the 8th Circuit case of Treanor v. MCI Telecommunications, Inc.', the court explained that the continuing violations doctrine "tolls the statute of limitations in situations where a continuing pattern forms due to [illegal] acts occurring over a period of time, as long as at least one incident of [tort] occurred within the limitations period."[1]

As I said, it does appear that you got one right, and I had to give that one to you. So you have my ongoing permission to quibble stupidly about the manner in which I offered that honest concession.

Your citation to matters of law that you have not the slightest ability to understand is appreciated since it underscores how ignorant you are. But since you are retarded and woefully ignorant, I shall once again deign to provide you with a small tidbit of accurate information:

Tort law has no applicability, you retarded asshole, to the issue of the proper statute of limitations in a criminal prosecution.

 

[sangha]

As I said, I was obliged to give you one. It does appear that the allegations of bribery preceded Mr. Cheney's tenure as Vice President. You have my permission to quibble about HOW I agreed with you, but as everyone who isn't a fucking asshole (like you) can plainly see, I had just agreed with you on that point. You jerk-off.

And I know that Statutes of Limitation vary from country to country, scum-sucker. Everyone knows that. Hell, even a retard like you has gathered as much. That's why I asked you to imagine what those Statute of Limitations might be. Let' me give you a hint, shit-muncher. It goes a little like this. I have very good reason to believe that the Nigerian FELONY of "treason" comes with a two year statute of limitation, So, now, given that morsel of information (which even a fubar like you should be able to verify pretty easily), does it seem likely to you that they made the statute of limitations for bribery and/or for "conspiracy" longer, the same length or shorter?

By the way, you incredible idiot, we all know that bribery is a real crime. What we don't know is whether Mr. Cheney was actually implicated in reality in any alleged Haliburton bribery over there in Nigeria. Once again (since you are truly quite stupid): there is a HUGE difference between some schmuck CLAIMING that Mr. Cheney committed a crime and Mr. Cheney actually having committed any crime. Anybody can SAY anything. hell, you've said all manner of stupid ass bullshit, but the fact that YOU make retarded claims doesn't make anything you say true in the real world, shit-breath.

Wrong. It does not merely "appear" that way; It *IS* that way. It has nothing to do with his actions as VP. You just can't admit it so you hide behind weasel words like "it appears"

WRT SoL's, there is actually NO LIMIT when the perp has taken actions to keep his crimes from being uncovered



And them there's the Continuing Violations Doctrine

Continuing violations doctrine
In tort law, if a defendant commits a series of illegal acts against another person, there is no statute of limitations. In the 8th Circuit case of Treanor v. MCI Telecommunications, Inc.', the court explained that the continuing violations doctrine "tolls the statute of limitations in situations where a continuing pattern forms due to [illegal] acts occurring over a period of time, as long as at least one incident of [tort] occurred within the limitations period."[1]

As I said, it does appear that you got one right, and I had to give that one to you. So you have my ongoing permission to quibble stupidly about the manner in which I offered that honest concession.

Your citation to matters of law that you have not the slightest ability to understand is appreciated since it underscores how ignorant you are. But since you are retarded and woefully ignorant, I shall once again deign to provide you with a small tidbit of accurate information:

Tort law has no applicability, you retarded asshole, to the issue of the proper statute of limitations in a criminal prosecution.

I posted about several exceptions to SoL, and all you can do is pick out the one on torts.

And in bribery cases, there is a potential for a civil case once (and if) Cheney is convicted.

 

[Liability]

Wrong. It does not merely "appear" that way; It *IS* that way. It has nothing to do with his actions as VP. You just can't admit it so you hide behind weasel words like "it appears"

WRT SoL's, there is actually NO LIMIT when the perp has taken actions to keep his crimes from being uncovered



And them there's the Continuing Violations Doctrine

As I said, it does appear that you got one right, and I had to give that one to you. So you have my ongoing permission to quibble stupidly about the manner in which I offered that honest concession.

Your citation to matters of law that you have not the slightest ability to understand is appreciated since it underscores how ignorant you are. But since you are retarded and woefully ignorant, I shall once again deign to provide you with a small tidbit of accurate information:

Tort law has no applicability, you retarded asshole, to the issue of the proper statute of limitations in a criminal prosecution.

I posted about several exceptions to SoL, and all you can do is pick out the one on torts.

And in bribery cases, there is a potential for a civil case once (and if) Cheney is convicted.

You posted no exceptions to the Statute of Limitations in Nigerian Law. And the one effort you made directly addressing any "exception" to a Statute of Limitations addressed itself to a civil matter, not a criminal matter, in any event, in addition to the fact that you were discussing some U.S. law.

Your effort, as always = fail.

But feel free to try again.

 

[daveman]

Obama/Holder isn't pursuing anything either, and will not honor a warrant against a former Vice President.

No one thinks that he would. What it proves is the entire world thinks Dick Cheney is rotten. The only ones that don't are Republicans.

Has anyone noticed how Republicans take one position and the rest of the world takes another?

Considering that only 6% of American scientists are Republican, it suggests how likely the right is, well, "right".

What's your justification for that 6% number?

He really really really really wants it to be true...so it is!

 

[daveman]

YOu want to only investigate the people who actually commit crimes?? How do you know who actually committed the crimes if you don't investigate?

And Interpol doesn't apprehend criminals.

I want the investigation to be for actual crimes, in the first place. And any of those podunk bullshit nations are always free to "investigate" whatever they choose to "investigate." A warrant to "arrest" our former V.P. is not needed for such an alleged investigation," however. Surely, even a goober such as you has to be able to grasp THAT much.

And Interpol may not (themselves) be able to arrest anybody, but they can and do put out wanted cards and warrants upon which law enforcement authorities can make such arrests. So the distinction you quibble about is quite trivial. No surprise.

In wingnut world, bribery isn't an "actual crime"

In moonbat world, being a conservative is a crime.

 

[Liability]

I have done a little more digging. It looks like Halliburtun agreed to an extension of the Statute of Limitations for an SEC investigation.

There is nothing to suggest that they offered to extend the Statute of Limitations for any Nigerian criminal investigation, however, and even if they did, there's no reason to believe their action could bind Mr. Cheney.

I see sanghahaha still can't advise anybody of what the relevant NIGERIAN Statute of Limitations for these alleged crimes would be.

Real surprise.

 

[sangha]

As I said, it does appear that you got one right, and I had to give that one to you. So you have my ongoing permission to quibble stupidly about the manner in which I offered that honest concession.

Your citation to matters of law that you have not the slightest ability to understand is appreciated since it underscores how ignorant you are. But since you are retarded and woefully ignorant, I shall once again deign to provide you with a small tidbit of accurate information:

Tort law has no applicability, you retarded asshole, to the issue of the proper statute of limitations in a criminal prosecution.

I posted about several exceptions to SoL, and all you can do is pick out the one on torts.

And in bribery cases, there is a potential for a civil case once (and if) Cheney is convicted.

You posted no exceptions to the Statute of Limitations in Nigerian Law. And the one effort you made directly addressing any "exception" to a Statute of Limitations addressed itself to a civil matter, not a criminal matter, in any event, in addition to the fact that you were discussing some U.S. law.

Your effort, as always = fail.

But feel free to try again.

WRT Nigerian law and SoL, even a moron would realize that their SoL didn't run out or else Nigerian Law would have forbidden them from asking Interpol to do anything about Cheney

You fail

 

[sangha]

I have done a little more digging. It looks like Halliburtun agreed to an extension of the Statute of Limitations for an SEC investigation.

There is nothing to suggest that they offered to extend the Statute of Limitations for any Nigerian criminal investigation, however, and even if they did, there's no reason to believe their action could bind Mr. Cheney.

I see sanghahaha still can't advise anybody of what the relevant NIGERIAN Statute of Limitations for these alleged crimes would be.

Real surprise.

Of course the SoL is still in effect you moron. If it weren't, Interpol would have rejected the Nigerian request. And if Cheney weren't bound by this, then again, Interpol would not have honored the Nigerian request

You really have no idea of how Interpol works, do you? (Hint: They don't just do whatever some nation asks them to do.)

 

[Liability]

I have done a little more digging. It looks like Halliburtun agreed to an extension of the Statute of Limitations for an SEC investigation.

There is nothing to suggest that they offered to extend the Statute of Limitations for any Nigerian criminal investigation, however, and even if they did, there's no reason to believe their action could bind Mr. Cheney.

I see sanghahaha still can't advise anybody of what the relevant NIGERIAN Statute of Limitations for these alleged crimes would be.

Real surprise.

Of course the SoL is still in effect you moron. If it weren't, Interpol would have rejected the Nigerian request. And if Cheney weren't bound by this, then again, Interpol would not have honored the Nigerian request

You really have no idea of how Interpol works, do you? (Hint: They don't just do whatever some nation asks them to do.)

You don't even understand what Interpol does with a color-coded request, you fucking idiot.

In any event, the Statute of Limitations may or may not have run out already and nothing you have pointed to even begins to answer the question of whether it has or not. Your premise (retarded as always, you jerk-off) is that the Nigerian authority seeking to make a name for himself couldn't POSSIBLY have over-looked the Statute of Limitations or that (possibly) he's aware that it did already run out, but is not concerned with that aspect of the case provided he can generate a little ink.

Your always shallow "thinking" is a reflection of the fact that when it comes to guys like Vice President Cheney, assholes like you are always willing to give him the benefit of a presumption of guilt. This is why you are a scumbag hypocrite, a lowlife and need to go fuck yourself, sangasshole.

You are dumber than a box of dick cheese.