Text 17083, 59 rader
Skriven 2011-04-19 15:41:28 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
  Kommentar till text 17009 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
Ärende: TSA frisking a 6-year-old girl :(
=========================================
Ward Dossche wrote to Ross Cassell on Monday April 18 2011 at 12:53:

RC>> Exactly how does the US Congress apply to a Svede.

WD> That's an easyone.

WD> Congress voted the "The Hague Invasion Act" which applies worldwide.
WD> Therefore also in Sweden.

Still another Euro who doesn't understand American humor. They renamed french
fries "freedom fries" too, which really should tell you something about how
serious the nickname (not the official title) the "Hague Invasion Act" is.

Incidentally, it's really called the "American Service-Members' Protection Act"
and what's been read into it here raises your hair (if you still have any):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Invasion_Act

"The stated purpose of the amendment was "to protect United States military
personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States
government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to
which the United States is not party"."

Now, since when has something like that been reprehensible? Particularly in
view of the fact that many Euros (and leftests throughout the world) have
drooled over the prospect of hauling an American General or even the president
himself to the Hague for trial, claiming "crimes" in Vietnam, Cambodia,
Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Iran... you can continue the list if you want.
Anywhere the Americans have been active in the last 50 years or so.

If the same people were as hot to get someone like Gaddafi to the Hague (or
even Mullah Omar or Osama bin Laden), he'd already be there. But the Americans
are bigger targets, and more fun to harrass.

Everyone who _is_ anyone hates the Americans... but screams for their
protection the second things go wrong, like the libyan "rebels" aka "freedom
fighters" at present.

WD> The US needs to decide whether it remains a constitutional republic or
WD> submits to international law, because it cannot do both.

Sure it can. Haven't a lot of people recently gone on about the US not
interfering in the affairs of "soverign nations" here? Why shouldn't that apply
in reverse?

WD> The Constitution is the supreme law of any country, and the conflict
WD> between adhering to the rule of law and obeying globalist planners is
WD> now staring everyone in the face.

At present, national constitutions _only_ apply. There is no world constitution
to override tham. That's why the Security Council was formed in the UN, which
otherwise would be a mere debating society and could be dissolved without
anyone noticing the fact. But every interference is a tight rope act, as we see
everytime the SC is involved.

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613
 * Origin: Jabberwocky System - 02363-56073 ISDN/V34 (2:2448/44)