Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Our government never learns. I can see going after someone if they're a war criminal, or even a known terrorist, but not a common criminal. It shows a total disrespect for the lawful and elected governments of our allies.
To openly declare the US has the right to ignore extradition treaties and kidnap crown citizens in direct violation of international law is just dumb. And people wonder why people in foreign countries hate Americans. There's going to come a time when we need an ally, and they won't be there because of this type of conduct.
Well let's be realistic. There is a lot the government already keeps from us, and we have to wait 30 long years for declassification.
In other words, in the interest of international relations, this isn't something that should be broadcast, other countries do it to us so we should do the same.
In the broadest possible terms, I VERY RELUCTANTLY agree. I'm not nearly as idealistic as I once was, and I just don't think you can get into a "street brawl" with murderous thugs using broken bottles, and always "act like a gentleman". I don't want to necessarily KNOW every single move my government makes, but common sense tells me they MUST be bending a FEW rules, or we wouldn't still be here.
For example, at this time, we don't SEEM to have any terrorists who've walked over the Canadian or Mexican borders--YET--and planted a nuclear bomb in the Men's Room at a major football stadium. Why not? Frankly, I don't know---but there MUST be measures being taken at our borders that we just don't hear about...otherwise, it makes no sense that it hasn't happened.
And yes, I agree that ANNOUNCING this is just plain STUPID.....
In the broadest possible terms, I VERY RELUCTANTLY agree. I'm not nearly as idealistic as I once was, and I just don't think you can get into a "street brawl" with murderous thugs using broken bottles, and always "act like a gentleman". I don't want to necessarily KNOW every single move my government makes, but common sense tells me they MUST be bending a FEW rules, or we wouldn't still be here.
For example, at this time, we don't SEEM to have any terrorists who've walked over the Canadian or Mexican borders--YET--and planted a nuclear bomb in the Men's Room at a major football stadium. Why not? Frankly, I don't know---but there MUST be measures being taken at our borders that we just don't hear about...otherwise, it makes no sense that it hasn't happened.
And yes, I agree that ANNOUNCING this is just plain STUPID.....
I agree when it comes to terrorism it's necessary to respond with a heavy hand at time for national security reasons. But this article the OP linked is nothing more than our government saying they have the right to kidnap British citizens who are wanted for business fraud.
You also have to remember that the US government has previously indicted international businessmen for purely political reasons, such as the internet poker arrests from last year. Arrests like that make other countries justifiably skeptical of US indictments in the first place, especially in fields like business.
I agree when it comes to terrorism it's necessary to respond with a heavy hand at time for national security reasons. But this article the OP linked is nothing more than our government saying they have the right to kidnap British citizens who are wanted for business fraud.
Sorry, I didn't do my homework. No, I don't like the sound of that a BIT. Sounds like "The Decider" is determined to anger the widest possible group of nations he can on his "way out"....
And we wonder why the UK thinks America is arrogant !!
I'm sorry but I have to say WE deserve the label of arrogant Americans over this one. I find this rather appalling actually and so much bollox about a bounty hunter law from back in the 1800??
The reality is that if one of our law enforcement from the US goes and does something in the UK like this, what is to stop them from charging this person with kidnapping? Not too mention who might get hurt while they are trying to make something like this happen to begin with.
If the extradition laws are not working then do something to make them better but to openly kidnap and ignore the law, thats not right.
Wasn't one of the underlying causes of the war of 1812 the British government's arrest of US citizens? (they were forcing them into service against Napoleon).
I went to look this up on Wikipedia, and I saw something else that reminded me of today...
"The war started badly for the Americans as their attempts to invade Canada were repeatedly repulsed by General Isaac Brock, commanding a small force composed largely of local militias and American Indian allies. The American strategy depended on use of militias, but they either resisted service or were incompetently led. Financial and logistical problems also plagued the American war effort. Military and civilian leadership was lacking and remained a critical American weakness"
I also found this from the same link...
America declared war on Britain for a number of reasons: outrage at the impressment (seizure) of thousands of American sailors, frustration at British restrictions on neutral trade while Britain warred with France and anger at Britian's military support for tribes in the Ohio-Indiana-Michigan area. One faction in Congress desired the conquest of Canada, while the British were occupied in their war with France, in the belief that if they were sufficiently weakened Canada would be easily overcome. This group was a minority, but another faction opposing impressment of seamen contributed sufficient votes to pass a bill declaring war by the smallest margin that had ever been recorded on a war vote in the United States Congress. On May 11, Prime Minister Spencer Perceval was shot and killed by an assassin resulting in a change of the UK government putting Lord Liverpool in power. Liverpool was for a more practical relation with the United States. A repeal of the impressment orders were issued but the US was unaware as it took three weeks for the news to cross the Atlantic. After war was declared, Britain offered to rescind the trade restrictions, but it was too late to appease the American "War Hawks", who portrayed the conflict as a "second war for independence." In addition to the stated reasons for going to war, a major goal of the War Hawks in the western and southern states was aggressive territorial expansion. The intent was to drive the British out of North America, and the Spanish out of Florida.
Hmmm, switch "invading Canada" with "Attack Iran" and I think we're just about there Some things never seem to change, especially the part about the "War Hawks using an obscure point of law and patriotism to fuel their expansionist ulterior motives.
I believe that the thread topic is purposely inflammatory. There is a subtle difference between kidnapping and extradition.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And we wonder why the UK thinks America is arrogant !!
Some things never seem to change, especially the part about the "War Hawks using an obscure point of law and patriotism to fuel their expansionist ulterior motives.
