>>1. They are not citizens of the United States therefore they have no >>rights under US law.
Yay! You are not American! We can shoot you, steal from you, anything! You have no rights. Or maybe you meant we can violate basic human rights because they are not American? Or maybe legal rights, so the US can hold any foreign national here for as long as they want without trial, counsel, etc? I'm not trying to twist your words, I just can't interpret what you meant. Otherwise, we should get off that whole human rights thing with China, because the people being violated aren't Americans. >>Does the US have the right to charge an American citizen of crimes >>committed in a different country? <snip> >>Personally I think he should have been tried for treason. But can he disavow citizenship without his countries permission? Can the US "force" him to still be a citizen even though he has left, taken upon the garb, lifestyle, language, etc of another country? If not, he should be grouped with the rest and treated the same. Yes, even if it was against other Americans(attacking 'his' country, btw). I know he choose to play the "I'm an American citizen" card when he was caught, and I addressed that in an earlier post. I'm just addressing the: >>Does the US have the right to charge an American citizen of crimes >>committed in a different country? >> >>I would say yes. Within limits. Something like if it's against another >>American(s). In this case he was fighting against us." >>4. The Taliban was only one government of Afghanistan, and was not >>actually the recognized government at the time of hostilities. The >>Northern Alliance was the recognized government and they invited us in and >>allowed us to take the foreign fighters out of their country. They didn't >>want them. Hmmm, 'recognized government'. So if we choose to recognize a particular government, any other competing governments/groups become the bad guys? What if the majority of that country's citizens recognize the one we choose not to? I've got it! We drop an airborne 11B in any country, have him make camp. Now, he declares him self an opposing government. The US recognizes his plight, he invites us in, and we attack and free him from the fascist regime. Bingo, our 51st state! I think we just found the loophole that will let us take over the world. Sweet. ; ) Shouldn't countries work through competing governments amongst themselves? Otherwise, the US would be dictating it's preference, and before you know it, we would be installing puppet governments with US-friendly policies into other countries. Oh, wait, never mind. It gets even better. Say the country with two opposing governments has a resource we want. No other deciding factors, except the cost they will sell that resource to us for. The US could become a "country hit-man", bartering it's services to the one writing us the biggest check through lower prices, trade, etc. Forget taking over the world, we'll just be country brokers and take a percentage. That's where the real money's at. ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-community@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
