How is that legal?
I'd like to see Trump sent for trial in any one of the countries he's imposed tariffs upon, but sadly perhaps, that isn't legal.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Thoughts on the Trump presidency
- Thread starter Gloster
- Start date
How is that legal?
I'd like to see Trump sent for trial in any one of the countries he's imposed tariffs upon, but sadly perhaps, that isn't legal.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
DelW
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 6,024
I think he's less certain of complete support than he used to be. He's alienating quite a few of the MAGA mob, and the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene have shown that they don't have to be as scared of crossing Trump as they used to be.
I read it that that was exactly the point being made
If you cast your mind back around 35 years there’s the exact template for this. Noriega of Panama being lifted by US forces and tried for drug trafficking etc.How is that legal?
I'd like to see Trump sent for trial in any one of the countries he's imposed tariffs upon, but sadly perhaps, that isn't legal.
He was then subsequently extradited to France and tried on further charges.
I don’t think there’s any particular issue with countries claiming wider jurisdiction than their own territory. The UK does so, for example. The issue is normally that countries can’t enforce it, whereas the US can. You may recall Spain trying to have Pinochet extradited for crimes he would have committed in Chile.
What crime are you suggesting imposing a tariff is?
Gloster
Veteran Member
It is legal because the man with the big stick says it is.
A moral crime, which seems to be Trump's objection to Maduro given that Venezuela is not part of the USA last time I looked. Not saying the Noriega business was any better, though was too young to understand much of what was going on.
But I wasn't suggesting trying Trump for tariffs, just pointing out the double standards.
Trump is jealous of Maduro because they both tried to steal elections but only Maduro succeeded.
Invading another country and extracting its leader isn’t justified in my book, even if Maduro stole the 2024 election. It’s for the people of Venezuela to get rid of him, however hard that might be.
American imperialism at its worst.
It’s not legal. It’s what the US can get away with.
Invading another country and extracting its leader isn’t justified in my book, even if Maduro stole the 2024 election. It’s for the people of Venezuela to get rid of him, however hard that might be.
American imperialism at its worst.
It’s not legal. It’s what the US can get away with.
Gloster
Veteran Member
I wonder if the Justice Department (that should be renamed) will now be so busy making up, sorry, preparing charges against Maduro that, oh dear, what a pity, they won’t have time to go through the remaining unpublished Epstein Files in order to check them before releasing. Well, I am sure that the American people will support the administration’s choice of prioritising efforts to grab oil reserves, sorry, uphold justice in the world rather than dealing with trivialities like Epstein and co‘s behaviour.
One difference there is that he actually was guilty of drug trafficking (which the US knew because they helped to facilitate it). There is little evidence that Venezuela is responsible for any significant amount of drugs traffic to the USA, with the preferred routes being through Mexico or via shipping from China.
Also, the invasion of Panama itself was predicated by an altercation between Panamanian police and US troops stationed in the country to maintain the Panama Canal Zone and so had at least the veneer of legitimacy since a serviceman was killed.
Annetts key
Established Member
I have just watched an international legal expert (allegedly) on the BBC News channel and she stated that the U.S. capturing any citizen from within their own country without following due process is not legal. I can't copy a quote as this was a on a TV channel.
The actions that the U.S. military carried out may be illegal under U.S. law but regardless, are in contravention of the international rule of law.
It’s actually 37 years to the day. Noriega was captured by the US forces on 3rd January 1989. This can’t be a coincidence surely?
brad465
Veteran Member
Plus the 3rd January 2020 was when Trump oversaw the killing of the top Iranian general. It's like Trump, and to a lesser extent past US administrations, want to start a new year off with a literal bang.
Didn't Trump just pardon another person who was an ex. President of another country who was done for involvement in drug trafficking? This makes what Trump has done even harder to justify.
Trump needs to be reminded that the Falklands war also doomed one leader, and it was the one from the invading force.
Trump needs to be reminded that the Falklands war also doomed one leader, and it was the one from the invading force.
martin butler
Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 883
Those files, and his lack of support must clearly have made trump reach for the "launch an invasion" button, But in doing so, He may have just lost every ally he had, What has been done is against international law, and to increase the trouble, it now includes unlawfully kidnapping and charging an foreign head of state with crimes, I hope that the US now reaps what it deserves, Isolation on the world stage, the loss of the dollar as a fall back currency and being a country that is shunned,
DarloRich
Veteran Member
I am starting to wonder about the credibility of the FIFA peace prize!
Gloster
Veteran Member
One question is: what now? Has the US prepared a coherent framework for future events, with or without it being a major part of the decision making? Or will it now walk away with a ‘job’s done’ attitude and leave Venezuela to sort itself out? Or will it try to impose a leader on the country? Even if it does impose Machado on the country, would her popularity survive being seen as a patsy of the US? And what’s the betting that access to oil will be a major factor in any agreement the US imposes on, sorry, bilaterally agrees with Venezuela?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
See #2,557.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
See #2,557.
The EU has made a statement, but otherwise it seems that the US didn't notify any of its supposed allies (including the UK - so much for the "special relationship"). I think they're all waiting for this press conference.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
The trump syndicate special operation is clearly about oil and strategic resources. Greenland next.
Annetts key
Established Member
At a time when crude oil prices are at their lowest for many, many years (since 2021), with the price likely to continue falling as consumption levels off or starts to fall as other energy sources gradually make up more of the energy market.
Another difference that I had forgotten - Noriega wasn't the Panamanian president at the time. There had been electoral turmoil (with claims of a stolen election) and while he was de facto leader he hadn't been appointed president.
Not beyond the realms of possibility these days.
I keep getting pop-up ads extolling the virtues of emigration to Canada.
All of a sudden that doesn't seem like a very good idea ........
Depends on whether the international community has got the guts to do anything about it. Europe will be in a dilemma because of Ukraine and there aren’t any other candidates with enough clout and moral high ground to do it, are there? Assuming he survives beyond his term, it might be a different story.
In theory, the ideal candidate to indict him would be Maduro’s successor (assuming it’s whoever is believed to have actually won the election).
Last edited:
He’s just been quoted in the Press Conference as such:
"We're going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c5yqygxe41pt
Didn’t Putin say that about Donetsk, Kherson and Luhansk?
"We're going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c5yqygxe41pt
Didn’t Putin say that about Donetsk, Kherson and Luhansk?
Last edited:
Strathclyder
Established Member
That FIFA arse-kissing peace prize is even more worthless now than it was 24 hours ago.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That's what it's always been about. Sovereign rights and the welfare of the people whose country they're assaulting are an irrelevence at best; never has that been more true than it is now.
Credibilty and FIFA: a contradiction in terms if ever there was one.
If this were the case and if I were in Starmer's position, I'd lure the Orange Turd in with the promise of another state visit with King Charles, then arrest him as soon as he sets foot off the plane at Prestwick. Stuff him into Broadmoor (or the Tower of London; may as well give him the full royal experience eh?) and once the 'trial' concludes, toss him onto Rockall.
Generally speaking, the 'special relationship' ought to just be put on ice until further notice; it has never been as transactional & one-sided as it is now. Refuse to restore it until something resembling sanity is restored (chances are we'd be waiting for quite a while).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
And didn't Bush Jr. say something along the same lines in 2003?
Last edited:
Putin and Trump are from the same mould, so that's not altogether surprising. I maintain that the 2028 US election could be "interesting"
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Ukraine allegedly targets Putin. Trump horrified.
Trump targets Maduro...
Trump targets Maduro...
brad465
Veteran Member
For a second I actually thought Putin had just been attacked.
From one unelected dictator to another...