Tucker Carlson: Mike Pompeo committed a felony when he looked to kidnap Julian Assange: Conspiracy to commit murder

Twitter/X ^ | Dec 22 | Tucker Carlson

[RandFan]

I posted this in /conspiracy but it's really News and should not be lost there.

(3 min 40 sec of the video)

Tucker says Mike Pompeo allegedly committed a felony in exploring how to kidnap Julian Assange in 2017 when CIA director.

Conspiracy to commit murder.

Stunning.

[Rockingham]

Oh yes there is.

[sauropod]

I don’t trust Pompeo. Something is off about him.

His demeanor, etc. is just too pat.

[Rockingham]

The international prosecution at Nuremberg was as to "crimes against humanity" and planning aggression leading to war. For the US government to snatch someone up in another country for domestic prosecution would be an "act of state" and not a crime against humanity.

Similarly, Israel did not violate international law when Israeli agents grabbed up Nazi fugitive Adolf Eichmann in Argentina and tried and executed him in Israel. Eventually, Israel admitted to a violation of Argentine sovereignty, which was a matter between those two countries.

[thinden]

add to watch list

thanx rand fan

[zeugma]

What they have done to Assage is criminal.

I’m sure the anti-Tucker bots will be in to tell us he’s a russian stooge.

[A strike]

Guess that would apply to things like blowing up Nordstream, right?

-fJRoberts-

[A strike]

“... immune from prosecution for crimes committed abroad that are “acts of state.””

[Rockingham]

Think about it. In a world in which countries spy against each other as a matter of routine, spies get caught now and then and sent to prison or even executed. When though have you heard of a ranking foreign government official who sent the spies out being charged with a crime? The reason that you do not is customary immunity. If not, international relations would soon become unmanageable because countries would be frequently charging each others’ leaders with crimes related to spying.

[A strike]

Rationalization.

Is that de facto, or de jure as you first claimed?

Have you got a Nordstream answer yet?

[Rockingham]

Both. In the absence of an applicable treaty, much of international law is based on custom and practice. This is similar to how US territories were governed before territorial governments were organized to promulgate written laws.

For mankind, as a general rule, in the absence of law-giving authority, custom usually has the force of law. In effect, the reliance interests embodied in custom tend to have the force of law.

As for Nordstream, what is your question?

[A strike]

iow it’s bs, whoever has the power makes the rules and does as he pleases

re: Nordstream, according to your theory when it is shown that it was blown up by Bidementia he will have “customary international law immunity”, right?

-fJRoberts-

[Rockingham]

Correct, as to criminal charges by other nation states against Biden. That would not exempt him from impeachment or the US from sanctions or other counter action in retaliation.

As to Biden for Nordstream and Pompeo in regard to Assange, due to legislation by Congress, they have absolute immunity from domestic US criminal charges because they were within the scope of their respective duties in office.

[A strike]

ae I said, bs

[Rockingham]

In the spirit of the season, if you research the subject a bit, you may find my comments reasonable.

More broadly, you might also take a look at how "Lex Mercatoria" (Latin for "merchant law") developed. Usually referred to as "the Law Merchant" or "Code Merchant" in English, it was the business customs, practices, and expectations that arose during medieval times in Europe as a way of settling disputes. In the absence of reliable judicial remedies, the "Law Merchant" was treated by businessmen as binding.

Much of international law is like that today, being a set of customs and practices that provide a benchmark for how nation states are expected to behave. As with the Law Merchant, a key goal is not justice in the sense of domestic law but to keep the otherwise lawless system of international relations functioning. The general legal immunity of high officials for "acts of state" follows as a matter of necessity.

[A strike]

That has as much efficacy as prosecutorial discretion or the authority of the bench.
Bottom line power rules.

[A strike]

Nation can be polite about it but bottom line power and gld make the rules.

-fJRoberts-

[Rockingham]

The traditional shorthand phrase is “reasons of state,” meaning that something that would be disreputable or wrong or illegal in a private capacity was done for the good of the country and is therefore legal even commendable if unseemly.

[A strike]

That of course is typical juvenile diplomat rational by those who don’t actually wield the power but need relevance, especially historically.

[Rockingham]

I get the snark, but your complaint is with the English language and the fact of centuries of diplomatic practice.