Biden's Attorney General Threatens People With Prison

But it is each person's right to determine their own future, and again, the butterfly effect could be for the better.
Yup, we could do nothing to stop Jim Jones, because it was their right to drink the kool-aid.
 
That's where you're wrong. Without a law against terrorism, Osama BinLaden wouldn't have committed a crime.

Conspiracy to commit murder is not a crime?
There has never been any problem charging people outside the US.
We even illegally arrest Noreiga over drugs that should not even be illegal.
 
That's because of international laws of war,

It wasn't a violation of US code.

Sure it was.
US code makes it illegal to murder or impress US citizens.
Doesn't matter where.
US code is based on the inherent rights of individuals, so has nothing to do with locations.
 
Conspiracy to commit murder is not a crime?
There has never been any problem charging people outside the US.
We even illegally arrest Noreiga over drugs that should not even be illegal.
9-11 was suicide. And you would remove any law against that. Along with laws against drugs. Which would mean everybody from Noreiga to BinLaden would never face punishment.
 
Sure it was.
US code makes it illegal to murder or impress US citizens.
Doesn't matter where.
US code is based on the inherent rights of individuals, so has nothing to do with locations.
We're talking 1800, at that time US code didn't make it illegal until 1948
 
9-11 was suicide. And you would remove any law against that. Along with laws against drugs. Which would mean everybody from Noreiga to BinLaden would never face punishment.

Arresting Noreiga violated almost ever generic law.
One of the most criminal events in all of history.

But Osama bin Laden was guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.
Nothing hard to prosecute about that.
In fact, the Taliban offered to turn him over to any Islamic court in the world, so the invasions were not at all necessary or legal.
 
But Osama bin Laden was guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.
Nothing hard to prosecute about that.
In fact, the Taliban offered to turn him over to any Islamic court in the world, so the invasions were not at all necessary or legal.
Actually the Taliban said they needed to see proof of BinLadens guilt before turning him over to a neutral third country. No such proof was ever offered or given.
 

Zaeef reiterated the Taliban insistence that it would not turn over bin Laden without receiving evidence of his participation in the Sept. 11 attacks on America, and he called again for talks with the United States, which President Bush already has rejected.

Khan said the United States did not offer clear-cut evidence of bin Laden's involvement

"We have yet to receive any detailed evidence about the persons responsible for the horrendous act of terrorism, or other links with bin Laden or al-Qaida," he said, while also repeating Pakistan's call on Afghanistan to hand over bin Laden.
 
We're talking 1800, at that time US code didn't make it illegal until 1948

I think you are confused as to what is legal or not.
Legality is not based on legislation.
Rights are infinite, so the ways they can be violated are infinite, and it is impossible to explicitly enumerate all possible criminal act.
Like privacy is hardly mentioned in law at all, but is one of the most important rights.
Law is based on precedent, going back to British Common Law, and not specific legislation.
Although we do tend to fall back on generic laws when we can't find specific ones, like disorderly conduct, assault, conduct regardless of life, etc.
The killing, kidnapping, or in any way harming anyone was always illegal.
There was no need for specific code in 1948, although not a bad idea.
 
Actually the Taliban said they needed to see proof of BinLadens guilt before turning him over to a neutral third country. No such proof was ever offered or given.

Well of course that is basic law.
No one should be surrendered or their rights infringed without evidence in a court of law.
Point being the Taliban were not the problem.

And we had no reason not to give evidence, since we could have designated Saudi Arabia as the destination, where Osama bin Laden already had a death sentence waiting for him.
So seems to me we had an ulterior motive for declining such a generous offer.
 

Zaeef reiterated the Taliban insistence that it would not turn over bin Laden without receiving evidence of his participation in the Sept. 11 attacks on America, and he called again for talks with the United States, which President Bush already has rejected.

Khan said the United States did not offer clear-cut evidence of bin Laden's involvement

"We have yet to receive any detailed evidence about the persons responsible for the horrendous act of terrorism, or other links with bin Laden or al-Qaida," he said, while also repeating Pakistan's call on Afghanistan to hand over bin Laden.

Which makes the Taliban the one following the law, while the US was the one violating the law.
 
I think you are confused as to what is legal or not.
Legality is not based on legislation.

The killing, kidnapping, or in any way harming anyone was always illegal.
There was no need for specific code in 1948, although not a bad idea.
States had laws against murder, but not the newly formed federal government. They didn't make it a federal crime until 1948, so any acts by the Barbary pirates would have to be handled as an act of war, not as a crime for which they could be imprisoned or executed.
 
Yea yea, cool story bro.

Comeback when you've actually got facts to back it up. Because without that you are just another wingnut running your mouth.

If the investigations that occur are whitewashes and most corruption is never investigated to begin with I will never have any facts to back my opinion up. You may feel you are on the winning side today but corruption can destroy nations from within. Take the Roman Empire as an example.


Slowly, the Roman way of life was suffocated till there was no sign of the once powerful Republic. And in the year 476 the Roman empire fell (Haywood 162). Corruption in all angles of Roman government were present. Instead of working together to continue preserving their civilization they took their power for granted. The feelings of greed and power overcame the Republics leaders and led them astray from responsibilities. The government could have led their people to more prosper times, but instead they followed their own ambitions. Roman civilization did not die a natural death. It was murdered (Kagan 91).

The fact that an amateur artist, Hunter Biden, is selling his art to undisclosed buyers for a fortune is a creative way for Joe Biden to peddle his influence for cash. Everybody with a brain knows this but of course nothing will happen except that those who purchase Hunters “art” will get favors.

Now you of course will claim that Hunter Biden is a modern day Picasso and therefore his painting are worth every penny. Here’s an example of his talent:

1628904559353.jpeg






 
If the investigations that occur are whitewashes and most corruption is never investigated to begin with I will never have any facts to back my opinion up. You may feel you are on the winning side today but corruption can destroy nations from within. Take the Roman Empire as an example.


Slowly, the Roman way of life was suffocated till there was no sign of the once powerful Republic. And in the year 476 the Roman empire fell (Haywood 162). Corruption in all angles of Roman government were present. Instead of working together to continue preserving their civilization they took their power for granted. The feelings of greed and power overcame the Republics leaders and led them astray from responsibilities. The government could have led their people to more prosper times, but instead they followed their own ambitions. Roman civilization did not die a natural death. It was murdered (Kagan 91).

The fact that an amateur artist, Hunter Biden, is selling his art to undisclosed buyers for a fortune is a creative way for Joe Biden to peddle his influence for cash. Everybody with a brain knows this but of course nothing will happen except that those who purchase Hunters “art” will get favors.

Now you of course will claim that Hunter Biden is a modern day Picasso and therefore his painting are worth every penny. Here’s an example of his talent:

View attachment 525349







Did I not just explain to you that your suspicions are not a fact make?

You may SUSPECT Joe Biden somehow corruptly selling out, but that doesn't make it so.

When you have specific, solid evidence of actual quid pro quo (the way there was plenty of against Trump), you run on back here and present it, for now you have nothing.
 

Forum List

Back
Top