Nation vs International Laws

[JonC]

We still circle back to what I posted re free speech.

But you can thank the failed liberal Trudeau for that stupid rule. But then again there any number of dumb laws on the books in the Canada and the US.


I agree.


But your US law does not apply outside the US. So the US invaded another country and kidnapped a person.


Canadian law in Canada and the laws of the country they are in if not Canada.

Federal criminal laws reach abroad.

The US can pursue criminals overseas if the crime impacts U.S. interests or violates specific federal laws with global reach.

So can Canada.

Maduro meets this classification. He was charged with narcoterrorism and conspiracy to traffic drugs into the US. Those are federal crimes that impact US interests.


I am not defending Trump. Only looking at the positions.


The question is whether nations submit their sovereignty to the UN. What laws are superior?

 

[canadyjd]

Well, since about 80% of the countries of the world belong to the “we hate America” club, it is foolish for the U.S. to compromise its sovereignty to any foreign institution.

Peace to you

 

[Silverhair]

Federal criminal laws reach abroad.

The US can pursue criminals overseas if the crime impacts U.S. interests or violates specific federal laws with global reach.

So can Canada.

Maduro meets this classification. He was charged with narcoterrorism and conspiracy to traffic drugs into the US. Those are federal crimes that impact US interests.


I am not defending Trump. Only looking at the positions.


The question is whether nations submit their sovereignty to the UN. What laws are superior?

Yes the US and Canada can pursue criminals overseas but that does not give either country the right to invade another country as the US did.

Maduro may have been a criminal and if he went to the US or a country that had an extradition treaty with the US then they could have legally pressed for his arrest.

No mater how you cut it what the US did was illegal. They are acting like a rogue/lawless state.

All the crimes you mentioned could have been dealt with if they went about it in a legal manner but they did not do that.

What would you say if another country invaded the US and took Trum* to be tried for crimes against their country.

The laws whether internal to your country or international are they for a reason.

As I said before and has been proven by the actions of the US, they are acting like a rogue state just like Russia and North Korea.

Care to explain how following international laws is giving up your nations sovereignty?

 

[Conan]

Manduro had Trumped up Charges. They were false. We keep the people of Venezuela poor by having them under US Sanctions, cutting them off from trade with other countries. We did that because they Nationalized their oil so they could have government programs for their people. We did the same to Iran. We overthrew their democratically elected government and installed the Shah. We recruited radical islamist to raise chaos in their streets. With Manduro we bribed their government and murdered his Cuban bodyguards.

 

[JonC]

Yes the US and Canada can pursue criminals overseas but that does not give either country the right to invade another country as the US did.

Maduro may have been a criminal and if he went to the US or a country that had an extradition treaty with the US then they could have legally pressed for his arrest.

No mater how you cut it what the US did was illegal. They are acting like a rogue/lawless state.

All the crimes you mentioned could have been dealt with if they went about it in a legal manner but they did not do that.

What would you say if another country invaded the US and took Trum* to be tried for crimes against their country.

The laws whether internal to your country or international are they for a reason.

As I said before and has been proven by the actions of the US, they are acting like a rogue state just like Russia and North Korea.

Care to explain how following international laws is giving up your nations sovereignty?

The US did not invade Venezuela.

The US launched targeted strikes and a specialized raid, suppressing air defenses before a team raided a compound and captured Maduro and his wife.


How does falling under UN law when it opposes a nation's law negate national sovereignty?

It depends on the situation.

You say Canada can pursue criminals in other countries. But (I assume) only if they can without the use of force.

I was actually asking a serious question. I believe the US set a dangerous precedent. It needed to be done, but in terms of international law it is a slippery slope (like Canada's hate speech laws).


The UN considered Maduro the legitimate president of Venezuela. The US, EU, and Canada did not. So was he?

 

[Silverhair]

The US did not invade Venezuela.

The US launched targeted strikes and a specialized raid, suppressing air defenses before a team raided a compound and captured Maduro and his wife.

What you just said is a contradiction. You say they "did not invade Venezuela" but then say they "launched targeted strikes and a specialized raid".

Was that raid done on US territory or on that of another sovereign country?

Since they were not invited to enter Venezuela then the US forces invaded that country and kidnapped the leader, Maduro, and his wife.

It does not matter that the US considered Maduro to be a criminal and had charged him with narcoterrorism and conspiracy to traffic drugs into the US. The US laws only apply to people in the US not in Canada or any other country. Just as Canadian laws do not apply to people in other countries.

You say Canada can pursue criminals in other countries. But (I assume) only if they can without the use of force

That is why we have laws, both international and domestic. That is why we have the extradition process.

I was actually asking a serious question. I believe the US set a dangerous precedent. It needed to be done, but in terms of international law it is a slippery slope (like Canada's hate speech laws).

Yes the US did set a very dangerous precedent. What is to stop another rogue nation form kidnapping some US citizen. What could the US say?

Yes I agree that Canada's hate speech law is a slippery slope as we have seen it play out in England.

The UN considered Maduro the legitimate president of Venezuela. The US, EU, and Canada did not. So was he?

It does not matter what the US, EU, or Canada thought. Maduro was the head of state of a sovereign country.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Federal criminal laws reach abroad.

The US can pursue criminals overseas if the crime impacts U.S. interests or violates specific federal laws with global reach.

So can Canada.

Maduro meets this classification. He was charged with narcoterrorism and conspiracy to traffic drugs into the US. Those are federal crimes that impact US interests.


I am not defending Trump. Only looking at the positions.


The question is whether nations submit their sovereignty to the UN. What laws are superior?

I believe that nations should be sovereign and we should respect such.

International laws may be recognized by treaties while respecting such sovereignty. I am against any sort of "World Court" dictating laws and forcing sovereign countries to bow to their will.

Maduro and Noriega are quite similar. The main thing that sparked outrage was that it was President Trump that initiated the action against Maduro and simply getting up and saying "good morning everyone" is sufficient to spark outrage among the radical leftists!

To be fair, there would probably be some pundits on the right expressing criticism of Biden or Obama if such occurred on their watch.

 

[JonC]

What you just said is a contradiction. You say they "did not invade Venezuela" but then say they "launched targeted strikes and a specialized raid".

Was that raid done on US territory or on that of another sovereign country?

Since they were not invited to enter Venezuela then the US forces invaded that country and kidnapped the leader, Maduro, and his wife.

It does not matter that the US considered Maduro to be a criminal and had charged him with narcoterrorism and conspiracy to traffic drugs into the US. The US laws only apply to people in the US not in Canada or any other country. Just as Canadian laws do not apply to people in other countries.


That is why we have laws, both international and domestic. That is why we have the extradition process.


Yes the US did set a very dangerous precedent. What is to stop another rogue nation form kidnapping some US citizen. What could the US say?

Yes I agree that Canada's hate speech law is a slippery slope as we have seen it play out in England.


It does not matter what the US, EU, or Canada thought. Maduro was the head of state of a sovereign country.

No, it is not contradictory. By definition the US did not invade Venezuela. The US suppressed Maduro's air defense and raided a compound.

It does matter if the US, Canada, and the EU held that Maduro was not the head of Venezuela. It matters a lot, in fact.

You view him as Venezuela's head of state (you fall in line with Russia, Cuba, and China). But he was not (he illegally seized power, oppressed Venezuela citizens and murdered thousands). Canada (the US snd EU) is correct on that.

And Canada, the EU, and the US were correct that Maduro needed to be removed and Venezuela freed. This was not even debated (except within the UN as China snd Russia prevented UN approval). The issue was how and when.


Yes, Canada is becoming like the EU. It is setting up to be hostile to Christianity. But like you said, the EU is the partner you desire for Canada.

The US is on the line. She could fall either way. I think the US will follow the EU and Canada decline as well. Perhaps not in my lifetime but there are groups of liberals who want the US to be more like Canada and the EU.

 

[JonC]

I believe that nations should be sovereign and we should respect such.

International laws may be recognized by treaties while respecting such sovereignty. I am against any sort of "World Court" dictating laws and forcing sovereign countries to bow to their will.

Maduro and Noriega are quite similar. The main thing that sparked outrage was that it was President Trump that initiated the action against Maduro and simply getting up and saying "good morning everyone" is sufficient to spark outrage among the radical leftists!

To be fair, there would probably be some pundits on the right expressing criticism of Biden or Obama if such occurred on their watch.

Lol....yes. The outrage about Venezuela, something that has occurred with other parties and met with approval, has more to do with the administration than the act itself.

There is a gray area, I think, when it comes to a nation's sovereignty. I travel quite a bit and would be slightly disappointed if Canada threw me in prison for being a "spy" (essentially being US citizen) and the US said "well....they are a sovereign nation so JonC is on his own".

The flip side would be if Canada sent a herd of mutated beavers to kill all Canadian Christians in the US because Canadian law made it illegal to be Christian.

 

[Foxmeister]

It was a violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

 

[JonC]

It was a violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

This is one reason I believe the US should leave the UN. The fact that we pay 60% in defense is another.


BUT the thing is, it is a law (to the US) without teeth. Under US law it does not matter how we got the terrorist.

What can the UN do?

Nothing because because the U.S. is one of the P5 and holds a permanent veto power on the UN Security Council.

Same reason UN cannot intervene in Ukraine. Russia violated international law. But Russia is a P5 nation.

Same reason UN could not stop China if China decided to invade Taiwan. China is a P5 nation.

The US, UK, Russia, China and France lead decisions on international peace, sanctions, and authorization of military force or peacekeeping missions. Each has perminent veto power.

 

[Foxmeister]

This is one reason I believe the US should leave the UN. The fact that we pay 60% in defense is another.


BUT the thing is, it is a law (to the US) without teeth. Under US law it does not matter how we got the terrorist.

What can the UN do?

Nothing because because the U.S. is one of the P5 and holds a permanent veto power on the UN Security Council.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You believe we are under no obligation to honor the obligations we made as a member of the UN. If that's the case, then are we obligated to adhere to the Geneva and Hague Conventions or any treaties we signed? BTW having veto power in the UN does not make a nation exempt to the enforcement of the charter.

 

[JonC]

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You believe we are under no obligation to honor the obligations we made as a member of the UN. If that's the case, then are we obligated to adhere to the Geneva and Hague Conventions or any treaties we signed? BTW having veto power in the UN does not make a nation exempt to the enforcement of the charter.

No, you misunderstand. That is not what I said.

I said that the UN cannot do anything about the US, Russia, China, the UK or France violating international law (all have).

The US, the UK, China, France, and Russia have all violated international law. And the UN could do nothing because these are all P5 nations. All the UN could do is say they violated international law.

Canada violated international law. The UN could impose sanctions. To my knowledge they didn't. Canada is not a P5 nation.

 

[Silverhair]

No, it is not contradictory. By definition the US did not invade Venezuela. The US suppressed Maduro's air defense and raided a compound.

Unless Maduro's compound was outside Venezuela, which it was not, then the US did invade Venezuela.

Yes, Canada is becoming like the EU. It is setting up to be hostile to Christianity. But like you said, the EU is the partner you desire for Canada.

Yes our government is going down that road and I am not pleased to see it happening.

But we also know that this will become more obvious worldwide as time draws to a close.

 

[JonC]

Unless Maduro's compound was outside Venezuela, which it was not, then the US did invade Venezuela.

Lol...no. "Invade" in context of invading a country is much more than raiding a complex in that country.

I understand liberals love exaggerating meanings of words. But that does not make such uses correct. You can get by with that, and even gain agreement, within your liberal crowd. So can MAGA people (they do the same, they are just on the opposite end of the liberal-conservative spectrum).

But no, raiding a compound in a foreign country is not the same as invading that country.

So much for the Canadian education system (ours has declined as well, but by your user name I took you for an older adult...you should have known better).

Yes our government is going down that road and I am not pleased to see it happening.

But we also know that this will become more obvious worldwide as time draws to a close.

Yes. I see Canada and the US becoming more like the EU as time passes. I do not know why I thought the US would get there before Canada. I guess I never paid much attention to the decline in Canada.

But we are right behind you (we are not as close as Canada but I think we will be picking up speed over the next few decades).

And you know what? I really do not worry about it. That is how the world turns. It is not my business. My business is elsewhere.