International law has no place in the US and should be fought tooth and nail by the American Public.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

---

Show me where I am defending him?

Perhaps I am mistaken. This is a thread about an activist group in Canada 'vowing' to arrest Bush because of his actions while a sitting POTUS in regard to Torture, as it relates to Canadian and international law. Bush defended these actions in defense of torture by saying the US was not accountable to international law. That, too, is the argument you are making against the notion that this 'arrest' could actually occur. Ergo, you are defending him. That's kinda what that means.

OR are you now saying you DON'T agree with Bush's stance on international law?

Um, maybe you are not understanding me.
I say go for it.
Will it happen? Do I really need to answer that??
But, please look to what other Governments (Including Canada's) are doing within this realm today.

Now, if you are implying that you want my stance on torture, then please start another thread.
Just because I think this is a waste of time and will not be successful does not, by default mean I am defending him.

Originally posted by aboutface
reply to post by macman

---

International law has no place in the US and should be fought tooth and nail by the American Public.

From this statement it seems you think everyone is trying to impose some law INSIDE the US? If so, you have missed the point completely. International law is about how countries behave outside on the world stage.

The point of the OP has nothing to do with US law or US internal politics. It's about upholding Canadian law in Canada

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

---

Show me where I am defending him?

Perhaps I am mistaken. This is a thread about an activist group in Canada 'vowing' to arrest Bush because of his actions while a sitting POTUS in regard to Torture, as it relates to Canadian and international law. Bush defended these actions in defense of torture by saying the US was not accountable to international law. That, too, is the argument you are making against the notion that this 'arrest' could actually occur. Ergo, you are defending him. That's kinda what that means.

OR are you now saying you DON'T agree with Bush's stance on international law?

Um, maybe you are not understanding me.
I say go for it.
Will it happen? Do I really need to answer that??
But, please look to what other Governments (Including Canada's) are doing within this realm today.

Now, if you are implying that you want my stance on torture, then please start another thread.
Just because I think this is a waste of time and will not be successful does not, by default mean I am defending him.

No, as I said, because you are defending the very same position he is being criticized for in the OP link, you are defending him.

It's so disappointing when people are so disingenuous. I mean, you're denying something you just said. Just admit it. Its okay. You agree with Bush's stance on the US's use of Torture, as it relates to International law vs. the US's 'sovereignty'. You already said so several times. (although you did continue to strong-headedly and inaccurately maintain it was somehow a violation of the USA's domestic 'sovereignty'.)

It's a common argument made. You're in common company. It's too bad you guys have thrown Bush under the buss, but still cant let go of the ideals he represented.