"People keep calling it illegal. Its not. I've provided historical evidence to shut down that claim."

I'm not sure it's possible to prove something is legal anyway.

The burden is to prove it to be illegal.

Has anyone bothered to do that?

Not that I'm aware of.

#54 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

I'm not declaring anything legal. Not defending any of this. Just rolling with it.

What can the UN do? What would he the consequences the UN can dispense to the US for this?

-That still does not negate the illegality of said actions.

I doubt the accusation of the law being broke is going to keep Trump up at night. Neither congress nor the UN is gonna do anything.

Where else can we pay a price? Cocaine prices might go up ... ..:-)

-we have NO moral standing to ever again criticize a foreign government.

We lost that a long time ago.

Practically everything Trump has done recently has been labeled a deliberate Epstein file distraction

What about this action? Did everyone just give up on that?

-We are a belligerent on the world stage

That you think automatically resets when the party in the WH changes. Morons in this country think the world cares about our partisan political bickering as they are being invaded, starving, flood, drought, disease, etc ... . But they really care about Trump screwing a porn star.

It was an good accurate post until that.

#85 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE

Perhaps, but it didn't come close to refuting what I posted.

-For JPW it's just plain ignorance, and I'm being generous.

More like rage.

Eberly doesn't say anything beyond "I don't care and no one else cares"

Nope

However you're admitting you can't say anything beyond "I care therefore EVERYONE else cares as well"

Now, which one of us is right?

You think the world cares about Stormy Daniels?

You do, don't you?

You're inside a very narrow minded bubble.

"the UN is both toothless and irrelevant in this circumstance."

The reality is yes. When you rely on 1 country for so much in terms of dollars and power you're gonna give that same country some latitude of fear we'll remember when you want our support in the future.

"so POTUS lying doesn't matter."

No, it doesn't. You really can't understand that, can you?

Fine ... ..so the world is very very upset over Trump's infidelity.

What happens next?

This Venezuela thing has gotten some attention.

My point is that you childishly believe the world cares about what you care about.

You're insanely wrong.

103

Try not to melt down quite so easily.

-I can't see what eberly posted but I'm 99% sure it's that.

Plonk me so you can directly address me? Even when I haven't said anything to you????

What a dope.

Everyone here is cringing for you right now.

Life is pointless, no one cares, and nothing matters.

I want to suck your dick like I'm mad at it

-Alexandrite

-Pointing out how abysmally stupid you dumbf(*&s are isn't rage, champ.

Yes it is, when you do it, Champ.

This isn't even in dispute. Not even by you.

Just stick to justifying it. It's fine.

"If Obama did half this ---- Bellringer would have an aneurism.
All he does is wash trumps balls."

I realize you think that's an insult but you're really just comparing him to yourself.

A partisan hack with selective outrage.

-Alexandrite isn't a partisan hack dear.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck......

-That we can veto away acknowledgement of illegal action doesn't change the fact that the action is in violation of a treaty agreement we signed.

What exactly is illegal about this "action"

Certainly not merely detaining Maduro and his wife. Sending in the military? Shooting people in Venezuela? Lack of notification/approval? What "action"?

Try and control your rage....I'm not suggesting it's legal or defending any of it....but merely asking clarification as to exactly what is illegal.

If Maduro has simply been available to arrest and we arrested him, would that be a violation of a law or treaty? We issued a warrant for his arrest years and years ago. Was that a violation?

Again, what is illegal/violation?

Try to avoid terms like "aggression" or "attacking" unless you can accurately define them.

-LOL and I stopped reading right here.

If only that were true, then you'd stop following him around retorting with " orange ji^% off your chin, dips*&^" on every thread and every post.

But we all know you didn't stop reading. You're just left with "orange ji^% off your chin....." to respond with.

-You're playing Retarded again, or frighteningly, you might really be

Didn't I remind everyone about controlling their rage?

Not possible, huh?

Just too friggin emotional to control yourself, obviously.

I mean.....you shouldn't be pissed at me for being so dumb......I'm not the one in this conversation who actually voted for Trump.

I have my definition of aggression...but I don't get to define it. I live in the real world and I have to live with regulations and rules written by other people. Not me.

Perhaps you're allowed to make believe anything you'd like. Is your daddy really rich or something?

144

At least you're trying to reach some sort of platform to discuss this issue.

"The Warrant itself was a violation.
Ever heard of a thing called Jurisdiction?"

You're sure about that? Issuing a warrant is a violation?

Did anybody give 2 ----- about the legality of the warrant when it was issued? Did anybody claim it was illegal at the time?

"United States of America v. Nicols Maduro Moros, et al. is a federal criminal case filed by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) on March 26, 2020, against Nicols Maduro, President of Venezuela since 2013, his wife Cilia Flores, and 14 senior Venezuelan officials. The indictment alleged that Maduro and his associates conspired with Colombian guerrilla groups to traffic cocaine into the United States as part of what U.S. authorities termed a "narco-terrorism" conspiracy.[1][2]"

Filing this criminal case was illegal?

Or.......was executing the warrant the illegal act?

What if Maduro and his wife were Christmas shopping last month in Miami and were apprehended at a shoe store?

Would there be all this hoopla over the arrest?

-If he was in our jurisdiction, then there wouldn't be a problem.

I agree but international law scholar effeteposer has declared the warrant itself illegal and a big problem.

So I'm confused to hell.......

"And I did stop reading."

wow...speaking of dying on a hill.

"Did the wife refuse to...."

hurting that bad, are you?

-No hill to die on here.

You brought the hill up.....but you're right. There really isn't one.

Speculation on the legality of this whole thing is just that. Speculation on what consequences we might face as a result of this is just that.

But beliefs outweigh opinions.

People mistake my opinion for a belief. There is a profound difference.....although understood very rarely here.

"Heads of state have absolute immunity while they are in office."

Consider how countries have interpreted that immunity protection......

The ambiguity of the immunities of heads of state is best illustrated by contrasting decisions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the UK House of Lords.

In the Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium) [2002] ICJ 1, the ICJ reaffirmed the principle of immunity of the head of state and other high officials. The Court stated: in international law it is firmly established that [ ... ] certain holders of high-ranking offices, such as the head of state, head of government and minister of foreign affairs, enjoy immunities from jurisdiction in other states, both civil and criminal'.

The ICJ has stated clearly that heads of state are immune for all acts performed during their time in power, including torture, genocide, and crimes against humanity.

The UK House of Lords came to a very different conclusion than the ICJ in regard to the actions by General Pinochet in Chile, finding that the nature of the acts (mass murders, torture, disappearances) could not logically be considered as official acts, and therefore Pinochet was not entitled to immunity in the courts of UK.

And this........

Immunities in the USA and Canada
Recent actions taken by Western states, particularly the USA, suggest that they see no validity to immunity of government officials when they act contrary to certain international norms, such as engaging in corruption or human rights abuses.

The Section 353 Corrupt and Undemocratic Actors Report to Congress of July 2021 listed 55 government officials from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras as ineligible to enter the USA, and revoked any existing visas they have to the USA, because of credible allegations of corruption by these officials. The list includes current ministers of the governments, former ministers, and other high-level officials of the countries.

I'm not arguing this was legal....just posting another perspective.

Try not to come after my wife or calling me a Putin ------- for daring to post such a thing......