Texas Court Ruling Rebuffs Bush and World Court

NY Times ^ | 11/16/06 | ADAM LIPTAK

[Killborn]

I can. FOr starters, the vaunted vigilante statement was a reaction to a loaded question from a reporter. To paraphrase, "what do you think about people around the border HUTNING illegal immigrants?" Not looking for them, not reporting them to the authorities, HUNTING them. During that entire question and answer seession, no one brought up the Minutemen group at all. Of course the President think that there are a bunch of lunatics going around shooting people, he's going to condemn them as vigilantes.

IF you are still interested, I'll give you more. BUt I really don't see the point if you can't be swayed in the slightest. If you can at least acknowledge that the "vigilante" thing is not in any way shape or form related to the Minutemen, then we have a start.

[Feiny]

"The World Court can suck my balls. I only abide by Scottish law."

~Orrin Hatch

[MamaTexan]

“We hold that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority by intruding into the independent powers of the judiciary,” Judge Michael Keasler wrote for the court, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

YES!

:-)

[GoLightly]

I didn't say they were protected by them. They're not, because they did things which are proscribed under the treaties.

[dcwusmc]

Nor are they covered by them, except as ILLEGAL COMBATANTS who may be summarily executed. And mostly SHOULD be summarily executed...

[Publius6961]

BUMP!

[Publius6961]

The situation has international implications. When an American is sentenced to death in a foreign court you might see things differently.

Actually, speaking for myself --- No. I don't.