Your original anology is flawed. Let me correct that flaw.
The rest of you OP is irrelevant in this case.
So on to the flaw. Person X (Sadam) commited a crime (war) and was given parole. Parole had conditions. Person X(Sadam) had to let the parole board (The UN) inspect his house at anytime, give unfettered access and give information on all his activites. Person X also could not own any weapons. Person X (Sadam) refused. Therefore the parole board has the right to revoke parole.
In other words Sadam, not the US, was under the obligation to meet the demands of the UN. He was on parole. He didn’t meet those demands so parole is revoked.
Note, the fact that some countries ::cough cough some wimps…I mean France:: do not agree with the war does not in any way mean that the agreement has not been breeched.
Your original anology is flawed. Let me correct that flaw.
The rest of you OP is irrelevant in this case.
So on to the flaw. Person X (Sadam) commited a crime (war) and was given parole. Parole had conditions. Person X(Sadam) had to let the parole board (The UN) inspect his house at anytime, give unfettered access and give information on all his activites. Person X also could not own any weapons. Person X (Sadam) refused. Therefore the parole board has the right to revoke parole.
In other words Sadam, not the US, was under the obligation to meet the demands of the UN. He was on parole. He didn’t meet those demands so parole is revoked.
Note, the fact that some countries ::cough cough some wimps…I mean France:: do not agree with the war does not in any way mean that the agreement has not been breeched.
sleestak, the problem is the parole board found that Person X was living up to his obligations, and one board member who disagreed took it into his head to go across town and shoot the parolee.
An American citizen is subject to US income tax laws worldwide. Of course, if you live overseas and never return home, collecting said taxes might be a moot issue. But it doesn’t change it that the IRS will forever lie in wait for you because the law says they can.
I think the real issue is the jursidiction vs enforceability of that jursidiction. Doesn’t the FBI now have worldwide jurisdiction within defined parameters? If so, enforcing that jurisdiction is another matter.
I dont recall ever saying that Harry Callahan took the law into his own hands either. He certainly broke a lot of administrative policies, disobeyed his superiors, used very unorthodox methods that an ordinary citizen would be arrested for but as a police officer was in the darker side of the grey area you mentioned.
UN Resolution 1441 does allow for the use of force, and while the US has tried to propose a second resolution to make the language explicit, it is implied in 1441. The US, in taking this military action, is not “taking the law into their own hands”. As the US is the defacto police of the world, it is in the grey area. As in the Dirty Harry movies, justification of the unorthodox behavior is found at the end. Not the beginning, not the middle but in the end.
Sua being of the legal profession, would probably phrase this more eloquently but I believe you are unclear on the concept of juridiction. Enforcement of the law is predicated by its scope of authority, its jurisdiction. The fact that you havent paid your taxes while overseas doesnt mean they do not have jurisdiction over you. They do. They just find it not cost efficient to enforce the tax laws on you.
*US law and US constitution doesn’t apply outside US territory * or to non-American citizens. We cant arrest a Saud minister for violating the freedom of speech ammendment. We cannot halt Iranian beheadings in public based on the US constitution language against cruel and unusual punishment. We cannot enforce a separation of church and state in the Afghanistan govt. We simply do not have jurisdiction and without that, we cannot enforce.
BTW, all your unpaid taxes will be levied upon your return to the US. Dont mess with the IRS. They are only second to FEMA in nastiness of enforcement.
