International law is based on jurisdictional control based on sovereignty. Meaning that crimes committed in a country are handled by the country of origin, unless the countries in question have an extradition policy with each other.
For example, how do you think Americans would respond if China put out a warrant on Trump or any other American representative and then sent in a special ops team to extract them?
Even when looking at the situation purely from the American court system… It’s going to be a hard case for any prosecutor to really present. The warrant was put out by grand jury, where the justice department doesn’t really have to present any real evidence and there is no defense.
Now, legitimate question not just what aboutisms, Obama did some things like this using fisa court stuff if I’m not mistaken is that not considered legal then? How would that be handled?
Pretty much all international law is mostly a fictional construct, especially for major powers. Legality is dictated from the pulpit, and there is no overruling globalized government.
However, imo pretty much anything that a secret court dictates is a legal fiction dreamed up to legitimize illegal/morally decrepit actions.
How would that be handled?
The same way the current predicament will be… There may be some geopolitical blowback, but no one is going to hold anyone accountable.
Seriously the important difference is that Maduro is the Venezuelan president. Abducting him like this is an attack on the government itself, on Venezuela as a country. Big difference between attacking part of the government and attacking its citizens.
I don’t know all that Obama did and the FISA courts were/are sketchy as hell, but one big difference in the “right way” to do this kind of thing is to coordinate with the foreign government and get their okay to enter the country and arrest their citizens. That’s simply not possible with a president, unless you’re intentionally supporting a coup. Which … this kinda is except there was no other group looking to take power.
International law is based on jurisdictional control based on sovereignty. Meaning that crimes committed in a country are handled by the country of origin, unless the countries in question have an extradition policy with each other.
For example, how do you think Americans would respond if China put out a warrant on Trump or any other American representative and then sent in a special ops team to extract them?
Even when looking at the situation purely from the American court system… It’s going to be a hard case for any prosecutor to really present. The warrant was put out by grand jury, where the justice department doesn’t really have to present any real evidence and there is no defense.
Ok interesting points thank you for that.
Now, legitimate question not just what aboutisms, Obama did some things like this using fisa court stuff if I’m not mistaken is that not considered legal then? How would that be handled?
No what aboutisms, but what about Obama tho?
Legit wondering if that makes it legal
No? Why would that make it legal?
You could argue jurisprudence, but that would mean there had to be an actual ruling in the past. There wasn’t so it isn’t relevant.
The whole argument is like a small child’s defense of “He did it first!”. This is the real grown-up world we are talking about, not some schoolground.
Well yes and no if you are pissed at trump for doing it you have to be equally pissed at Obama
And that would be what we call a what aboutism and false equivalency fallacy.
Go away troll
False equivalency huh?
How can you have a moral conversation or opinion about something when your morals are skewed to begin with and you won’t recognize that.
Pretty much all international law is mostly a fictional construct, especially for major powers. Legality is dictated from the pulpit, and there is no overruling globalized government.
However, imo pretty much anything that a secret court dictates is a legal fiction dreamed up to legitimize illegal/morally decrepit actions.
The same way the current predicament will be… There may be some geopolitical blowback, but no one is going to hold anyone accountable.
Seriously the important difference is that Maduro is the Venezuelan president. Abducting him like this is an attack on the government itself, on Venezuela as a country. Big difference between attacking part of the government and attacking its citizens.
I don’t know all that Obama did and the FISA courts were/are sketchy as hell, but one big difference in the “right way” to do this kind of thing is to coordinate with the foreign government and get their okay to enter the country and arrest their citizens. That’s simply not possible with a president, unless you’re intentionally supporting a coup. Which … this kinda is except there was no other group looking to take power.
Ok interesting points thank you.