US says it has right to kidnap British citizens

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Completely agree. The US has refused to let outside authorities (read UN) tell us what to do on

That comparsion does not work, Sailor Steve, for several reasons.

1. the issue in this thread is state A acting by its own laws in violation of rules and laws of state B, inside state B, without asking it for permission, cooperation, or letting it known, and without any internationally legitimated mandate. It imposes its own laws onto that state, that way.

2. that does not compare to an organisation where membership is voluntary, and where states have agreed to certain rules to follow. If these rules then are being demanded by the many to be followed by the few or the one, then this is accordance with earlier agreements of the state, formally. Of course, the taregtted state sees that different, usually, but that is not the issue : the mechanism is a different one, than if one state violates foreign sovereign national law unilaterally and arbitrarily. Also, in this example, the UN decision making is transparent, and follows (ideally) principles even the targetted state before has agreed to (if it is a UN member), whereas the US in our example tries to operate secretly.

3. you implicitly say that the Us has a right to resist UN demands and rules, because the US is a sovereign state. On the other hand the US has no problem with the UN forming demands (with American participation) that violating the sovereignity of other nations (Iran, for example: technically there is not the smallest legal argument to demand iran to stop uranium enrichment, for example). So there is biased opportunism at work. You accept that the UN makes american-backed demands to state and violates their sovereignity in you understanding when claiming to defend that soveriegnity of the US, but you reject that the UN makes demands that you say violate america's sovereignity.

You can't have it both. It is either sovereingity for all, or for none. Ideally, the UN is not meant to be an American tool to help enforce American policies. Or any other nation'S selöfish policies, btw. In practice, it got abused from the first year on, of course.

If you want to make an argument in your reply to my earlier posting, than you need to give an example of a foreign nation that all by itself has imposed it's law onto the US and violates it's sovereignity. The UN - is no nation. It gets abused by many players, but it is no independant player in itself. It is no nation, that is.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

...but you reject that the UN makes demands that you say violate america's sovereignity.

And well we should:

Article 1, Section 1 of the US Constitution

"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives."

That which is vested cannot be surrendered or reassigned to anyone or anything and certainly not to the UN. If our politicans were to do so it would make them traitors.

[Skybird]

then play withoiut cheats. Leave the UN. You reserve rights for yourself that you do not grant to others, and abuse the Unb to acchieve with other (sovereign) states what yiou would never accept for yourself in return.

If Iran has /or makes a law that says it shall not give up sovereignity to any international body, would you accept it unconditionally? No, you would not.

Ypou declare that ameircn laws undocntionally rule over any other nations' laws, and international laws, rules and agreement. You even vilate the sovereignity of allied nations, becaue you American law says that is fine for the US. That makes the US the centre of the known universe. and that earns you criticism, well-deserved.

T tell you the truth: I do not know anybody in Germany who sees himself as a vasall of American laws. Strange, isn't it.

If you want a supsect from european cojhntries to be handed over to your authorities, I strongly suggest that you ask us, simply that, and make treaties with us that make such cooperations a thing of reciprocity, instead of using unilateral secrecy by which you violate the sovereignity of OUR nations. Or would you like it if the BKA starts hunting US citizens inside the US and kidnapp them without ever even caring for what your authorities think of that, not to mention: your people? Like America is not one of germany's federal state, so are the european nations and the rest of the globe no part opf the united states. and that is what limits the valdity of your laws - at you borders.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

then play withoiut cheats. Leave the UN. You reserve rights for yourself that you do not grant to others, and abuse the Unb to acchieve with other (sovereign) states what yiou would never accept for yourself in return.

Leaving the UN would be fine by me.

If Iran has /or makes a law that says it shall not give up sovereignity to any international body, would you accept it unconditionally? No, you would not.

Wrong. I'd accept it just fine just as i accept the concept that Germans have the right to govern themselves first and paramount.

Ypou declare that ameircn laws undocntionally rule over any other nations' laws, and international laws, rules and agreement.

I declared no such thing. According to our constitution our leaders may not enter into any treaty, agreement or abide by any international law that surrenders our sovereignity to anyone. Sorry if you don't like it but that's the way it is.

You even vilate the sovereignity of allied nations, becaue you American law says that is fine for the US. That makes the US the centre of the known universe. and that earns you criticism, well-deserved.

So US government is violating the sovereignty of allied nations because we'll prosecute a criminal that is returned to our jurisdiction even if his capture violated the laws of the country he was apprehended in? I know English isn't your first language Skybird but surely you don't expect us to let a criminal, like say a bin Laden go scot free, just because his capture violated someone elses local laws.

T tell you the truth: I do not know anybody in Germany who sees himself as a vasall of American laws. Strange, isn't it.

Not so strange I guess, we haven't seen German as a vassal state since we ended the post ww2 occupation of your country.

If you want a supsect from european cojhntries to be handed over to your authorities, I strongly suggest that you ask us, simply that, and make treaties with us that make such cooperations a thing of reciprocity, instead of using unilateral secrecy by which you violate the sovereignity of OUR nations.

And if you refuse to give up someone like a bin Laden? What then? War is a better alternative?

Or would you like it if the BKA starts hunting US citizens inside the US and kidnapp them without ever even caring for what your authorities think of that, not to mention: your people?

Nobody is saying you wouldn't have the right to prosecute the hunters if you catch them in accordance with your own laws. So as long as that's understood then go right ahead. I suppose if we really can't deal with it we can always declare war or hit you with sanctions.

Like America is not one of germany's federal state, so are the european nations and the rest of the globe no part opf the united states. and that is what limits the valdity of your laws - at you borders.

Your sarcasm aside, we'll just have to agree to disagree here Skybird. A fugitive from our justice system is still a fugitive whether or not your country decides to shelter him. We'll do whatever we can do to get him back even if it means treading on your self righteous toes a little if you refuse to cooperate.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by jumpy

And it's no surprise that no comment is forthcoming from us sources; I wouldn't want to publicly discuss some shady, outdated excuse for violating a sovereign nations boarders and abducting foreign nationals either.

I disagree, but only to the point that I think there would be some official postition either confirming or denying it. The fact that nothing has been said to me indicates that our officials aren't even sure what to make of it yet.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
Completely agree. The US has refused to let outside authorities (read UN) tell us what to do on


That comparsion does not work, Sailor Steve, for several reasons.

I hope you misread me, because I was trying to agree with you.

1. the issue in this thread is state A acting by its own laws in violation of rules and laws of state B, inside state B, without asking it for permission, cooperation, or letting it known, and without any internationally legitimated mandate. It imposes its own laws onto that state, that way.

Reducing that to our personal American experience, the US states bound themselves to submit to Federal authority where state versus state questions arose. While the US may refuse to submit to UN authority in some questions, a respect for the sovereignty and autonomy of other nations has to be paramount.

2. that does not compare to an organisation where membership is voluntary, and where states have agreed to certain rules to follow. If these rules then are being demanded by the many to be followed by the few or the one, then this is accordance with earlier agreements of the state, formally. Of course, the taregtted state sees that different, usually, but that is not the issue : the mechanism is a different one, than if one state violates foreign sovereign national law unilaterally and arbitrarily. Also, in this example, the UN decision making is transparent, and follows (ideally) principles even the targetted state before has agreed to (if it is a UN member), whereas the US in our example tries to operate secretly.

And some of us, at least, agree that that is wrong.

3. you implicitly say that the Us has a right to resist UN demands and rules, because the US is a sovereign state. On the other hand the US has no problem with the UN forming demands (with American participation) that violating the sovereignity of other nations (Iran, for example: technically there is not the smallest legal argument to demand iran to stop uranium enrichment, for example). So there is biased opportunism at work. You accept that the UN makes american-backed demands to state and violates their sovereignity in you understanding when claiming to defend that soveriegnity of the US, but you reject that the UN makes demands that you say violate america's sovereignity.

You can't have it both. It is either sovereingity for all, or for none. Ideally, the UN is not meant to be an American tool to help enforce American policies. Or any other nation'S selöfish policies, btw. In practice, it got abused from the first year on, of course.

Actually, I agree with all of the above. I don't have any specific answer to the Iran question, because I don't know everything, and try to withhold opinions until I have more facts. I have some beliefs where Iran is concerned, but no real answers.

If you want to make an argument in your reply to my earlier posting, than you need to give an example of a foreign nation that all by itself has imposed it's law onto the US and violates it's sovereignity. The UN - is no nation. It gets abused by many players, but it is no independant player in itself. It is no nation, that is.

Again, I wasn't arguing with you. I was agreeing.

[Skybird]

It seems that I misunderstood your first paragraph in your first reply indeed, then. I'm sorry for that, Sailor steve. I must confess, after having re-read it twice, I still would fall for misunderstanding it. Maybe I saw too little or too much irony there.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Leaving the UN would be fine by me.

which still would not give you any right to act by your own rights in foreign nations and ignore their own, and impose yours onto them like in the example in this thread.

Wrong. I'd accept it just fine just as i accept the concept that Germans have the right to govern themselves first and paramount.

Then you agree that Iran should be allowed to develope nukes if they want, yes? Becasue by legal standards, they have that right.

I declared no such thing. According to our constitution our leaders may not enter into any treaty, agreement or abide by any international law that surrenders our sovereignity to anyone. Sorry if you don't like it but that's the way it is.

as long as your constittuion ends at your borders, I do not care. Wehre you impose your laws onto others becaseu you say your constitution allows you to do - that is were legal and justified self-defense against your trespassing of the line begins. Like in this example, which remains to be an example of wrong no matter what your constituion say on that. Becasue your rules and laws have to end at your borders.

So US government is violating the sovereignty of allied nations because we'll prosecute a criminal that is returned to our jurisdiction even if his capture violated the laws of the country he was apprehended in? I know English isn't your first language Skybird but surely you don't expect us to let a criminal, like say a bin Laden go scot free, just because his capture violated someone elses local laws.

Your jurisdiction ends at your borders, and like you would not accept others to run secret police actions in your nation, you must and have to accept that you have no policing authortiy in foreign soverign nations. You can ask those nations for that suspect, and they will decide what to do on the basis of THEIR laws then, not yours. you can be allowed by these nations to catch him yourself, or doing so but having to accept assistance from the local police. but rushing in and get him yourself and not caring at all for the sovereignity of others, is nothing else but an infiltration. No, you do not have any right at all do behave like that. You also would not accept it if others would behave like that with regard to your own country.

Not so strange I guess, we haven't seen German as a vassal state since we ended the post ww2 occupation of your country.

that could be argued about. especially the current government knows only vasalls, and nothing else. and it repeatedly has dealt with others like that.

And if you refuse to give up someone like a bin Laden? What then? War is a better alternative?

You accept it. Period. We do not talk of Bin Laden. We talk of an immoral manager suspected of having commited fraud. Leave Bin Laden out of this. As a matter of fact, as I said in my first answer, you actually commit an act of war when infiltrating and kidnapping him in violation of the countries sovereignity and laws.

Nobody is saying you wouldn't have the right to prosecute the hunters if you catch them in accordance with your own laws. So as long as that's understood then go right ahead. I suppose if we really can't deal with it we can always declare war or hit you with sanctions.

Oh, the law of the juingle! I should have known that it all comes down to that level. By that reply you indicate that you accept that Ameican agents kidnapp suspects from other nations not becasue they have a right or it is legeal, but becasue your country thinks it has the bigger club.

And I am realistic enough to very strongly assume that if the BKA would hunt down suspects in your nation in violation with your laws and not letting you know, and remaining secret about that act of violating your sovereignity, that the public outcry would be immense and most of your politicians would be in arms over this act of german aggression and arrogance.

As a matter of fact, the BKA would not even consider it, ever. Becasue our laws end at our borders, like yours have to end at your borders. the BKA has acted in foreign nations indeed. with permission of their goivernments and in lcose cooperations with their police authorities.

Your sarcasm aside, we'll just have to agree to disagree here Skybird. A fugitive from our justice system is still a fugitive whether or not your country decides to shelter him. We'll do whatever we can do to get him back even if it means treading on your self righteous toes a little if you refuse to cooperate.

Then you are the criminal as well, behave by the law of the jungle, and commit an act of war. Your country is not the navel of the earth, and your police has no right to ignore the sovereignity of other nations, and if your laws and eventually your constitution says differently, then that is bad, and a declaration of arrogance and lacking concern.
No sarcasm at all.
The example is not about a nation giving shelter to a manager suspected of fraud. Britain did not deide to giuve him shelter. It even did not knew, and the US completely ignores Britain as if it were not there.
It also means that we are not seen as your allies, but as your vasalls indeed that you see as having to obey your orders, of course. If you really were a freind, you would have a bit more trust into our polices and legal systems as well. It is not that they are all crap and barbarism, and it is not as if american laws are the new definition of "perfect".

[AntEater]

Well, I suppose that means the Russians can kidnap Berezowsky?
Equal rights for all

[Penelope_Grey]

Well Im rather confused... but I pity any American dumb enough to try and kidnap me!

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Don't get me started on this topic.

Such behavior means the intended violation of the sovereignity of another state. If it is conducted without cooperation and/or knowledge of the target state, it means an act of war in my eyes. Attacking agents, no matter if american or Israeli or Belgian or Kenian ones, would - if being caught - get courtmartialed and executed on the basis of martial law and what it has to say on combatants not wearing uniforms, if it were up to me. No american agent from any of the american services has any right to enforce Ameeican laws on german/European/foreign streets, and if american law says somethign different, it still is only valid for the nation of the US, not Europe or any other nation worldwide.

US laws may not be permitted to overrule other nations laws, and the validity of US laws ends where the sovereignity of other nations begin - at the latest. Not accepting this is megalomania, arrogance, and an act of war - simply this. The world is not the rest of America. Bounty hunters may have been a tradition in the Wild West, but if they leave the Wild West and operate outside the Us, they are just gangster and criminals, needing to be locked away, or put down. f they are acting on behalf of orders from American authorities and offices, in my eyes they are commiting an act of war. And that means courtmartialing them for me (like spionage and sabotage in general is an issue not for civil courts, but military courts, since it is about attacks of one country on another). Interestingly, a longer while ago, one judge of the German constitutional court, once argued the same way on TV.

Tell Amercia that the Russians from now on, or the Danes, or Australia claims such rights in return, and attack America's sovereignity that way - and imagine what colourful, nationalistic reactions from america you would get immediately. America claims that right for itself only becasue it thinks america is allowed to do it, and it is allowed to do it becasue it is America. And that is a definitely too rich.

Spot on!

[sparkomatic]

not to step on any toes...but the Brits? C'Mon...I loved it when the Brits accused the US of "Empire" Building...now that is hypocracy (its in your freakin' name)

[STEED]

I'm in the Village. :p

Be seeing you.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by sparkomatic

not to step on any toes...but the Brits? C'Mon...I loved it when the Brits accused the US of "Empire" Building...now that is hypocracy (its in your freakin' name)

I thought the words read United Kingdom :hmm:

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Then you agree that Iran should be allowed to develope nukes if they want, yes? Becasue by legal standards, they have that right.

If a nuclear armed Iran is not acceptable to us then we have the historic option of going to war to prevent it.

as long as your constittuion ends at your borders, I do not care. Wehre you impose your laws onto others becaseu you say your constitution allows you to do - that is were legal and justified self-defense against your trespassing of the line begins. Like in this example, which remains to be an example of wrong no matter what your constituion say on that. Becasue your rules and laws have to end at your borders.

We're not talking about prosecuting a wanted criminal in Germany. They would be brought back to the US first.

Your jurisdiction ends at your borders, and like you would not accept others to run secret police actions in your nation, you must and have to accept that you have no policing authortiy in foreign soverign nations. You can ask those nations for that suspect, and they will decide what to do on the basis of THEIR laws then, not yours. you can be allowed by these nations to catch him yourself, or doing so but having to accept assistance from the local police. but rushing in and get him yourself and not caring at all for the sovereignity of others, is nothing else but an infiltration. No, you do not have any right at all do behave like that. You also would not accept it if others would behave like that with regard to your own country.

You're repeating yourself which does not help your brevity problem Skybird. Again, if you don't like it then war is always an option.

that could be argued about. especially the current government knows only vasalls, and nothing else. and it repeatedly has dealt with others like that.

That statement just shows that you have absolutely no clue what a vassal really is. A vassal has no rights. You my fine vassal friend enjoy the same rights I would in our justice system.

You accept it. Period. We do not talk of Bin Laden. We talk of an immoral manager suspected of having commited fraud. Leave Bin Laden out of this. As a matter of fact, as I said in my first answer, you actually commit an act of war when infiltrating and kidnapping him in violation of the countries sovereignity and laws.

First off why not talk about bin Laden? Does he not fit into the fake outrage you're trying to portray here in this thread? As for your immoral manager example, obviously any fugitive recovery would have a risk/reward assessment associated with it. You can try to paint a picture of armies of US agents sweeping the German gutter for fugitives from our justice system but you greatly exaggerate. A failing of yours I continually note in your posts concerning my country. One would almost get the idea from reading them that you don't really like us...

Oh, the law of the juingle! I should have known that it all comes down to that level. By that reply you indicate that you accept that Ameican agents kidnapp suspects from other nations not becasue they have a right or it is legeal, but becasue your country thinks it has the bigger club.

My country does have a bigger club. A much larger one than the world will ever allow Germanys to get again I tell you whut.

And I am realistic enough to very strongly assume that if the BKA would hunt down suspects in your nation in violation with your laws and not letting you know, and remaining secret about that act of violating your sovereignity, that the public outcry would be immense and most of your politicians would be in arms over this act of german aggression and arrogance.

Uhh, if they remained "secret" how would our population/politicians know to get up in arms?

As a matter of fact, the BKA would not even consider it, ever. Becasue our laws end at our borders, like yours have to end at your borders. the BKA has acted in foreign nations indeed. with permission of their goivernments and in lcose cooperations with their police authorities.

Your laws do not end at your borders Skybird. Are you trying to say that a fugitive from German justice is no longer a fugitive because he runs past your borders? That's just silly.

Then you are the criminal as well, behave by the law of the jungle, and commit an act of war. Your country is not the navel of the earth, and your police has no right to ignore the sovereignity of other nations, and if your laws and eventually your constitution says differently, then that is bad, and a declaration of arrogance and lacking concern.

Accusations of arrogance from the forums arrogance king mean very little to me Skybird.

The example is not about a nation giving shelter to a manager suspected of fraud. Britain did not deide to giuve him shelter. It even did not knew, and the US completely ignores Britain as if it were not there.
It also means that we are not seen as your allies, but as your vasalls indeed that you see as having to obey your orders, of course. If you really were a freind, you would have a bit more trust into our polices and legal systems as well. It is not that they are all crap and barbarism, and it is not as if american laws are the new definition of "perfect".

You really ought to rein in your strawman arguments a bit because I never said that your laws are "crap and barbarism". Of course we have trust in our friends legal systems or else we'd still be running your government like we did in the post nazi era back when we couldn't trust you. But don't expect us to let some mass murderer go just because you personally don't like the method we used to apprehend him.

If we want to put a bounty on a fugitives head we will. If someone collects that bounty by delivering him to our jurisdiction we will not let that fugitive go because someones feeling got ruffled.

If you really our friends you wouldn't be sheltering our fugitives in the first place.

[Dowly]

Oh ffs! Why you guys keep on arguing over as simple things as this.

US laws mean sh*t outside of US, if there's no permission from the nation US is trying to apprehend a suspect from, then it is illegal for US to do so and for what I understand, the suspect could shoot the agent and call it self-defence and he would most propably win the case.

The bottom line is, that no matter if your country would cover 99% of Earth, it does not give you rights to not go by the laws of the nation you are arresting someone from.