LOL @ small government

[75th]

They are trying to stop people from orchestrating illegal events overseas and escaping US law because the acts weren't committed on US soil. These kinds of laws have been around since the 1970's (and probably even before).

It's easy to use this law as an example of big government, but as long as we're going to keep drugs illegal here it makes no sense to let US citizens facilitate drug operations outside the US.

Aside from the fact that they are:

1) Not breaking any laws in the US.

and

2) Not breaking any laws in the outside country.

So this is a fun Internet debating topic for closet liberals, but not very interesting outside of that context.

lol

If by "closet liberals" you mean "people that are against arresting folks for breaking absolutely no laws in the United States whatsoever" then you hit the nail right on the head.

 

[miplank]

plunkey needs to refill his lobby candy

 

[mrplunkey]

Citizens leaving US soil to bribe foreign officials = Illegal

Citizens leaving US soil to plot terror attacks = Illegal (ask Anwar al-Awlaki about that one)

Citizens leaving US soil to transfer key technologies (i.e. nuclear) = Illegal

Citizens leaving US soil to setup drug factories and engage in narcoterrorism = A-OK!

Makes sense to me.

USA! USA! USA!

 

[75th]

Citizens leaving US soil to setup drug factories and engage in narcoterrorism = A-OK!

Assuming that the foreign country in question has no laws against establishing a drug factory, and assuming that at no point will narcotics produced in said drug factory cross the border into the US, if you were the attorney assigned to prosecute this case what would your argument be?

PS have you ever closed a deal while engaging in narcoterrorism while on foreign soil?

 

[PICK3]

lol @ small government

9-9-9

 

[75th]

We need BO-WULD solutions!!!!!

 

[mrplunkey]

Assuming that the foreign country in question has no laws against establishing a drug factory, and assuming that at no point will narcotics produced in said drug factory cross the border into the US, if you were the attorney assigned to prosecute this case what would your argument be?

PS have you ever closed a deal while engaging in narcoterrorism while on foreign soil?

1) lol @ no drugs crossing border

2) so I guess the same should hold true for a US nuclear scientist. I'm pretty sure it would be fine with Iran if he wanted to setup shop there. And of course no nuclear materials would ever leave the country.

3) lol @ such a weak troll. Even you can do better than that.

 

[-SD-]

between 2 wars, the all consuming WOT, domestic war on drugs, the US doesnt have the resources (or jurisdiction) to administer our already draconian drug policy on a global scale. Might as well start building our prisons overseas to make the logistics a little more manageable lol

 

[75th]

1) lol @ no drugs crossing border

2) so I guess the same should hold true for a US nuclear scientist. I'm pretty sure it would be fine with Iran if he wanted to setup shop there. And of course no nuclear materials would ever leave the country.

3) lol @ such a weak troll. Even you can do better than that.

1) If drugs crossed the US border, then the person in question has broken US law. Arrest him/her and charge them accordingly.

You never answered my question. What would your argument be against someone who has broken no laws in two separate countries?

2) The same should hold true for any person who has not broken US law while in the US and not broken the law of any foreign nation while residing in said nation.

Side note: lol @ being scared of Iran.

3) Even you have to admit it's probably one of the dumbest arguments you've ever made.

Second side note: It continues to amaze me how modern day Republicans become less and less familiar with the definition of the term "conservative" as the years go by.

Neglecting to arrest someone who has broken no laws whatsoever is probably the most conservative thing a nation can do.

Big government ftw!

 

[mrplunkey]

1) If drugs crossed the US border, then the person in question has broken US law. Arrest him/her and charge them accordingly.

You never answered my question. What would your argument be against someone who has broken no laws in two separate countries?

2) The same should hold true for any person who has not broken US law while in the US and not broken the law of any foreign nation while residing in said nation.

Side note: lol @ being scared of Iran.

3) Even you have to admit it's probably one of the dumbest arguments you've ever made.

Second side note: It continues to amaze me how modern day Republicans become less and less familiar with the definition of the term "conservative" as the years go by.

Neglecting to arrest someone who has broken no laws whatsoever is probably the most conservative thing a nation can do.

Big government ftw!

Ahhhh... Got it. Bust the $800 total income/year mule so the American narcoterrorist can safely setup 1000 yards into Mexico and load him up with a meth shipment.

Of course you have to bust the US person. A law like this makes it possible to do so.

And based on your (2), does that mean you oppose technology transfer restriction laws and the foreign corrupt practices act? Are you also 100% against military actions like our drones anytime a US citizen is involved?

I answered your question. Time to answer mine.