Dog the Bounty Hunter has sworn to bring Snowden back to American, though what ever illegal means he can find.
And just who has offered a billion dollar reward for his return? The government isn’t allowed to hire mercenaries or brake international law in pursuit of the accused, so who is backing this?
Seems North Korea is at it again.
And I will reiterate the last paragraph;
When an unstable communist dictator openly threatens to nuke you, what is the proper response. I’m especially interested in the opinion of left-wingers who reflexively dismiss any sort of aggressive response as only making the situation worse. Fine. What would you do? Pay them a king’s ransom? Ignore them and pray they’re not serious? Go to the Chinese (you might want to bring some money, since we owe them a little) and ask them to get the kid under control?
Being moderate, I try to steer away from total destruction. And I’d like to see us (the US) get out of other countries’ business, but this time it is a direct threat on us. We invaded the middle east because of an indirect threat, what will we do to counter this direct threat?
Over the years, I have a ton of red flags thrown by the Republican leaning crown over this or that UN proposals.
More often than not, I am not too overly concerned about them. My lack of concern in general is that the UN is a spineless, and in general worthless organization, with only good intentions to share. Yes, They do help from time to time.
I have been watching (off an on) their proposed Small Arms Treaty. It brings to mind a few questions.
Even if two thirds of our Senate were to ratify the treaty, how binding would it be?
We know that we are fairly unique in our stance on, and right to, arms.
Can a treaty override the U.S. Constitution?
Would the Constitution have to be amended to fall in line with a treaty such as this one?
With regard to the UN treaty itself…
Snopes (Yes, once again I have to trumpet their efforts) has covered this topic.