What should we do about bin Laden?

ziggy wrote:
We do not allow vigilante citizens to "enforce the laws". Nor should vigilante nations take it upon themselves to decide what the law is for one nation while at the same time encouraging other nations to violate the same kinds of laws (U.N. resolutions).

Citizens' Arrest
By David C. Grossack, Constitutional Attorney
Common Law Copyright © 1994
All Rights Reserved

Not long ago the politically correct Boston Globe noticed a "shocking" new trend. It seems as if some citizens of Massachusetts were so fed up with crime that they have begun to intervene in petty street crime afflicting the streets of our cities. Thieves and pickpockets in Massachusetts should exercise caution in where and how they ply their craft as the chances that vigilantes pummel them and drag them to the nearest cop are definitely on an upswing. While the Globe is shocked at this healthy trend, students of the law should note that both a statutory and common law basis for a certain degree of "vigilante behavior" is well founded. Indeed, in an era of lawlessness it is important that readers be advised as to their lawful right to protect their communities, loved ones and themselves by making lawful citizens' arrests. The purpose of this essay is to simply explain the law and the historical context of the citizen's arrest.

A strong argument can be made that the right to make a citizen's arrest is a constitutionally protected right under the Ninth Amendment as its impact includes the individual's natural right to self preservation and the defense of the others. Indeed, the laws of citizens arrest appear to be predicated upon the effectiveness of the Second Amendment. Simply put, without firepower, people are less likely going to be able to make a citizen's arrest. A random sampling of the various states as well as the District of Columbia indicates that a citizen's arrest is valid when a public offense was committed in the presence of the arresting private citizen or when the arresting private citizen has a reasonable belief that the suspect has committed a felony, whether or not in the presence of the arresting citizen.

http://www.constitution.org/grossack/arrest.htm

SamCogar wrote:Of course Ziggy, I don't expect you to agree with or believe the above ........ and I am sure you will surely reply with all sorts of BS ....... in that you consider yourself a really brilliant Constitutional scholar and interpreter of Laws. .

ziggy wrote:

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:So then should it be a priority for the U.S. to enforce U.N. resolutions?

So, if the Cops and the Courts refuse to "enforce the Laws" ....... should the citizens just let the criminals run rampant, doing whatever they want to do?

We do not allow vigilante citizens to "enforce the laws". Nor should vigilante nations take it upon themselves to decide what the law is for one nation while at the same time encouraging other nations to violate the same kinds of laws (U.N. resolutions).

What "criminals"? The U.S. armed and bankrolled Saddam Hussein for decades. When did he all of a sudden become a criminal?

What about the Israeli "criminals" who violate U.N. resolution after U.N. resolution every day? Why do they get a free pass from the U.S.?

Zigster, why is it you piss n' moan to high heaven because the State of WV doesn't enforce compliance of Federal coal mining "resolutions" ........ but also piss n' moan to high heaven whenever the US does enforce compliance of United Nations "resolutions"?

The coal mining laws you call "resolutions" allow the federal government to engage enforcement agreements with the states- in which the feds direct and the states agree to enforcethe federal mining laws.

But the U.N. did not direct nor even authorize the U.S. to enforce U.N. resolutions re: Iraq in 2003. Hell, the U.S. ran the authorized U.N. personnell out of Iraq in 2003. Since 2003 the U.S. has been nothing more than just another terrorist organization in Iraq.

GEEEZUS, you are as remotely uninvolved with "coal country" doings as you are with "foreign country" doings ....... so just what the hell is either any of your business and/or concern ..... in that your two "positions" are contrary to each other?

Not contrary at all. Through enforcement agreements authorized by both state and federal laws, and through adoption of federal regulations into its own state laws, the state of WV is mandated to enforce the coal mining laws.

No such agreements existed and applied to the U.S. and the U.N. re: the U.S. invasion of Iraq on 2003.

ziggy wrote:The United States of America, under the failed leadership of George W. Bush, put itself in that class.

Count the innocent deaths caused by OBL, and the innocent deaths caused by George W. Bush, and then tell us in what "terrorist class" each belongs.

ziggy wrote:The United States of America, under the failed leadership of George W. Bush, put itself in that class.

Count the innocent deaths caused by OBL, and the innocent deaths caused by George W. Bush, and then tell us in what "terrorist class" each belongs.

No, it does not belong. Like it or not, we went in under a valid UN resolution.

We remain at the wishes of the legitimate Iraqi government.

ziggy wrote:What was valid about it? Considering their historical dismissal- by the U.N.'s own members- U.N. resolutions have become about as "valid" as a 20 year old pass to a local high school wrestling match.

So you don't want to do that count of innocents killed , eh? I thought not. You are so predictable.

We remain at the wishes of the legitimate Iraqi government.

In 2003 Saddam's government was no less the "legitimate Iraqi government"- more legitimate, actually, by virtue of longevity. Both were achieved via military might- Saddam's from within, Talabani's from the outside.

And I suppose that the S. Vietnamese "government" in place in 1964 was the "legitimate So. Vietnamese government" too, right? After all, it too was "elected" after being installed via a U.S. instigated and supported coup / civil war.

Aaron wrote:What innocents? The ones planting roadside bombs, attacking their own countrymen, blowing up cars and mosque's or the victims of those bombings?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:What innocents? The ones planting roadside bombs, attacking their own countrymen, blowing up cars and mosque's or the victims of those bombings?

What roadside bombs? Before the U.S. invasion, there were no roadside bombs in Iraq. Saddam didn't tolerate them.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:What innocents? The ones planting roadside bombs, attacking their own countrymen, blowing up cars and mosque's or the victims of those bombings?

What roadside bombs? Before the U.S. invasion, there were no roadside bombs in Iraq. Saddam didn't tolerate them.

They're there now and they're killing thousands of innocents, right dude. But that's all GWB's fault, right dude.

Aaron wrote:While I didn't agree with the reasoning for going into Iraq and I also believe that we should at the very least address our membership and support in the United Nations, to say we are a terrorist organization in Iraq is absurd. Both the United States of America and the Hussien led Iraqi goverment were members of the United Nations and agreed in principal to abide by UN resolutions, which the government failed to do.

The reasoning may have been flawed but like it or not, the invasion was authorized by valid UN resolutions. To put the United States of America in the same class as OBL is at best, absurb.

Aaron wrote:Zig was the one that labeled the US terrorist because of our actions, which you supported by the way (are you a terrorist) and I was merely pointing out that we are not on the same level as OBL. Do you believe we are as Zig does?

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

The UN wasn't willing to back up its own resolution, just as it is in general an organization given to making great pronouncements (say, against genocide in the Sudan and Rwanda) and then proving itself completely impotent in implementing it's own decrees.

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

Then what sense does the UN resolution calling for Saddam Hussein to comply "or else" make? What was it, 1441?

So then should it be a priority for the U.S. to enforce U.N. resolutions?

SheikBen wrote:

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

Then what sense does the UN resolution calling for Saddam Hussein to comply "or else" make? What was it, 1441?

So then should it be a priority for the U.S. to enforce U.N. resolutions?

Well, no, Zig, and I think that was too much of an influence on Bush's decision.

ziggy wrote:
On the contrary, I don't think 1441 had any influence on Bush's decision to invade Iraq. Bush determined to do what he was going to do, period- and that was to invade Iraq. That was the neo-con gang's plan- to invade and occupy Iraq- in the planning for years before it actually happened. Then he and his now after the fact defenders set about to find any excuses they could to cover Bush's naked warmongering ass. Like leaves in the woods, that U.N. resolution just happened to be handy.

Aaron wrote:Zig was the one that labeled the US terrorist because of our actions, which you supported by the way (are you a terrorist) and I was merely pointing out that we are not on the same level as OBL. Do you believe we are as Zig does?

SheikBen wrote:

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

The UN wasn't willing to back up its own resolution, just as it is in general an organization given to making great pronouncements (say, against genocide in the Sudan and Rwanda) and then proving itself completely impotent in implementing it's own decrees.

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

Then what sense does the UN resolution calling for Saddam Hussein to comply "or else" make? What was it, 1441?

So then should it be a priority for the U.S. to enforce U.N. resolutions?

Well, no, Zig, and I think that was too much of an influence on Bush's decision. I want the US out of the UN immediately, such that the UN can make whatever pronouncement it cares to, and the US can go on as if it didn't.

The very existence of the UN is an affront to national sovereignty. It's high time we not only ignore what it says, but not fund it with our dollars OR our political involvement.

My point is that the UN proves itself to be worthless whenever it makes a statement that is either unwilling or unable to back up (consider how it views Israel and the "success" it's had:). Bush should not have cared what 1441 said and let it be one more example of how worthless the UN was; however, he sent Powell there to make his argument and then dropped the bombs when they proved themselves truly disinterested.

I'll repeat, US OUT of the UN! Of course, that will do about as much good as me saying "GIVE ME MONEY! I NEED A NEW ROOF!" but both statements make me feel better:)

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

Then what sense does the UN resolution calling for Saddam Hussein to comply "or else" make? What was it, 1441?

So then should it be a priority for the U.S. to enforce U.N. resolutions?

Well, no, Zig, and I think that was too much of an influence on Bush's decision.

On the contrary, I don't think 1441 had any influence on Bush's decision to invade Iraq. Bush determined to do what he was going to do, period- and that was to invade Iraq. That was the neo-con gang's plan- to invade and occupy Iraq- in the planning for years before it actually happened. Then he and his now after the fact defenders set about to find any excuses they could to cover Bush's naked warmongering ass. Like leaves in the woods, that U.N. resolution just happened to be handy.

Stephanie wrote:
There are tens of millions, probably hundreds of millions of people across the globe who feel terrorized by the actions of the US government, or agents of the US government. I'm sure in their eyes we are.

Stephanie wrote:So when are you going to answer my questions?

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:
There are tens of millions, probably hundreds of millions of people across the globe who feel terrorized by the actions of the US government, or agents of the US government. I'm sure in their eyes we are.

Do these same tens of millions, probably hundreds of millions feel the same way when they're taking our money???

Stephanie wrote:So when are you going to answer my questions?

About invading Israel. Sorry but I don't see that happening. Israel is considered a friend of American and the chosen people of God so I doubt the US government will be invading the promised land anytime soon.