Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [7x10minilathe] Re: US military Engagements Under Clinton OT:

Expand Messages
  • Mark Wendt (Contractor)
    Consider the LOST treaty that they want to ratify. All sorts of bad things in there giving away measures of US sovereignty. That s also one of the reasons to
    Message 1 of 60 , May 1, 2009
      Consider the LOST treaty that they want to ratify. All sorts of bad
      things in there giving away measures of US sovereignty. That's also
      one of the reasons to date none of our Presidents have signed, nor
      Congress's have ratified any treaty that puts our folks up against the ICC.

      Mark

      At 08:58 PM 4/30/2009, you wrote:
      >Is there such a critter? I'd expect the senate would have caught
      >that sort of thing before ratifying it.
      >
      >Roy
      >
      >--- In 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Wendt (Contractor)"
      ><mark.wendt@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > How about some treaty that forces us to give up parts or all of our
      > > sovereignty, and would force violations that would normally be tried
      > > in our country in some international court, like the ICC?
      > >
      > > Mark
      > >
      > > At 09:19 PM 4/29/2009, you wrote:
      > > >Got a specific issue in mind?
      > > >
      > > >Roy
      > > >
      > > >--- In 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Wendt (Contractor)"
      > > ><mark.wendt@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > But, what if those specific provisions of international accords
      > > > > violate the law of the land?
      > > > >
      > > > > Mark
      > > > >
      > > > > At 09:08 PM 4/28/2009, you wrote:
      > > > > >No, the big picture means you prosecute significant crimes & don't
      > > > > >waste time piddling around with trivial BS. Having a conversation,
      > > > > >not followed by direct action is trivial BS; having a policy of
      > > > > >violating specific provisions of a number of international accords
      > > > > >is a significant crime.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >Roy
    • Dave Mucha
      True, and we did not prosecute Clinton for treason, but it does not change the fact that the laws exist, they were broken and CAN be used when the time is
      Message 60 of 60 , May 1, 2009
        True, and we did not prosecute Clinton for treason, but it does not change the fact that the laws exist, they were broken and CAN be used when the time is ripe.

        remember, we are now entering a time with a very one-sided point of view would love to see the opposing political camp jailed and tortured. Look at all the violence that comes out of the left and the venom that some spew on this list towards the republicans.

        Dave





        --- In 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com, "roylowenthal" <roylowenthal@...> wrote:
        >
        > That law's never been used to successfully prosecute anyone. I doubt that anything in the last century would change that.
        >
        > Roy
        >
        > --- In 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas" <bigmanfun@> wrote:
        > >
        > > I found it very interesting that Obama and Pelosi both took trips immediately before the $4 gas hike. It would be interesting if these events were actually correlated with some evidence of what was discussed. Secrets usually get out. I am patiently waiting for this one to surface. If it does, would that be a violation of the law significant enough to prosecute?
        > >
        > > Thomas
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.