or in BushSpeak™: “it’s legal because we say it is”…aka: head, meet wall
omnipotent: [thesaurus: all-powerful, almighty, supreme, preeminent, most high; invincible, unconquerable]
think about those attributes for a moment. are they characteristics that you would categorize as a positive contribution to the psychological makeup of an individual, or even a group of people…let alone actions that were taken with that as the underlying principle?
what if they were the primary doctrine, vis-a-vis foreign relations, of your government?
as a rational person you would, l presume, see those actions as the mark of a country awash in the profligate pursuit of it’s own hubristic goals. their actions, unmoored from the foundations of the underlying philosophy of their own founding, awash in the an aggressive pursuit to control the actions of those over which it has no claim to sovereignty,
what happens when arrogant omnipotence is blatantly, with extreme prejudice, exerted over a sovereign nation that has long been an ally? canada and great britain for example?
welcome to the ussa, where we’re the biggest, baddest asses on the planet.
“whatta ya gonna do about it?”
more below the belt…
what is the appropriate response when a foreign nation violates the laws and international agreements to which they are signatories?
canada has given their answer, in spite of a reich wing government, and great britain has yet to decide what to do.
un oh, Canadian Judge Invalidates Country’s Refugee Treaty With U.S.:
Canada’s treaty with the U.S. on the treatment of refugees is illegal because the U.S. doesn’t comply with conventions protecting asylum seekers and sometimes sends people to countries where they may be tortured, a Canadian judge said.
Canada entered into an agreement on the treatment of refugees with the U.S. in 2004, as part of the two countries’ “Smart Borders Declaration.” The accord bars Canada from considering refugee applications from people who arrive in the country from the U.S. by land. Canada is required to send those asylum seekers back to the U.S.
Canada’s Parliament approved the law, subject to some conditions, including that the U.S. comply with international conventions designed to prevent asylum seekers from being sent back to countries where they may be persecuted, or to countries that engage in torture.
it would appear chimpy’s protestations that “we don’t don’t torture” are not being taken seriously by some of the activist judiciary in other countries.
as you may well surmise, this bit of news brought out the reich wingers in force, as may be evidenced in the comments attached to the ctv article Federal court strikes down refugee agreement…which, by my reckoning, have been expunged of the more vitriolic offerings since it was first posted.
none the less, the latest furor may have a great deal more credence in regards to international relations. it seems that the official us position regarding “extraordinary rendition” covers a much broader spectrum of perpetrators than our allies had been led to believe. so much so that “A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.”
yes indeed, it is now, according to BushCo™, perfectly acceptable, and within their rightful power, to kidnap people if they are wanted for offenses that they alone determine.
US says it has right to kidnap British citizens
…A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.
.
.
.
During a hearing last month Lord Justice Moses, one of the Court of Appeal judges, asked Alun Jones QC, representing the US government, about its treatment of Gavin, Tollman’s nephew. Gavin Tollman was the subject of an attempted abduction during a visit to Canada in 2005.Jones replied that it was acceptable under American law to kidnap people if they were wanted for offences in America. “The United States does have a view about procuring people to its own shores which is not shared,” he said.
He said that if a person was kidnapped by the US authorities in another country and was brought back to face charges in America, no US court could rule that the abduction was illegal and free him: “If you kidnap a person outside the United States and you bring him there, the court has no jurisdiction to refuse — it goes back to bounty hunting days in the 1860s.”
Mr Justice Ouseley, a second judge, challenged Jones to be “honest about [his] position”.
Jones replied: “That is United States law.”
.
.
.
The US Justice Department declined to comment.
‘declined to comment’…? indeed they did…and rightfully so, it takes time to get the spin straight. they’re probably looking for a signing statement to absolve themselves of a capital crime, as the last time l looked kidnapping was a federal crime, punishable, in certain circumstances, by death. this must be different though since the scotus says it’s ok, must be ok, eh. after all, they’re the ones responsible for the chimperor’s ascension to the throne to begin with, one could reasonably presume that ussa law supersedes british law in britain. an interesting concept, and when pursued to it’s logical conclusion, not one that bodes well for the future of international relations.
this bit of conceit has not gone unnoticed by the rest of the world especially those paying attention in the GWN:
We have a country bordering us that invades other countries under false pretext; suspends habeas corpus and spies on its own citizens; doesn’t consider waterboarding, for which it has previously prosecuted as torture and convicted foreign military officers for such, as torture; and now says it’s law allow it to kidnap and render citizens of other countries on their own soil. And I’m sure that hasn’t quite covered it all.
Can we finally admit it now?
The United States of America is a rogue state, a threat to democracy and freedom everywhere, and is a threat and a danger to each and every one of us. It no longer has the right to consider itself a civilised nation. I can no longer consider it as such.
This a rogue state with no respect for the rule of law. And no desire to respect the rule of law. It is now a law unto itself. And it’s out there in the open for all to see.
I can’t think of any other logical way to put it.
neither can l.
h/t olivia for the canadian response.
