Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Laxtonto

Certifiably Surly

Everything posted by Laxtonto

  1. So a whole new ST unit in one evening... Banks putting in work
  2. If you have to ask, you can’t afford it….
  3. This will instantly become the most commonly misspelled name in the game threads for the Fall...
  4. PK at Stanford would be great. No real conflict with us for most recruits. Not a team we will play and yet a great west coast location for him to end up. Very happy it is not USC.
  5. Sweet! I didn't know Ted Kaczynski had any eligibility remaining....
  6. This is fucking great news... but how the fuck does Bohls get the scoop? Like, WTF man...
  7. Nope, it would be an attack on a Panamanian ship (most likely or maybe the Bahamas), and international law would apply. Would the US still get pissed off at them? Absolutely. Would the US attack them outright, maybe. But most importantly, those ships were already under the legal protection of a nation, and as such, attacking them would then be seen as an attack on that nation itself. My guess would be the US would intervene on Panama's behalf and bomb the hell out of them anyway because Panama most likely could not. There is a reason why almost all open ocean-going vessels are flagged. It provides them with legal status in international waters. Many ships are convenience-flagged for various reasons (taxes, safety regulations, passage rights, etc.) in a variety of countries that are not their company/industry/crew's home port. This is also why unflagged vessels are pursued, boarded, and even sunk, as they are stateless and therefore can be treated with suspicion and subject to forcible interdiction. Also, all flagged vessels are then subject to the standard customs, forms, required documentation, and inspections when entering a port of call from international waters.
  8. Being the Head of State is a pointless exercise in US (and many other) law, as there is no "head of state" exemption. Now we can get into the idea of violation of sovereign territory in his apprehension, but I am not sure how it could ever be argued that this is the first time the US (or, for that matter, many other countries) has ever done something like that. The courts in the US have already ruled on the legality of trying this type of unwilling defendant, and the rare part of this is the fact that Maduro will actually be tried outside of his home country. Most of the time, those poor individuals are turned over to the opposition party on home soil and don't get tried elsewhere for other charges, but let's not get into that because the world of geopolitics is littered with bodies of rulers that fell out of favor with those who were stronger than they were and were fed to the machine of progress. To me, what is fascinating is that Article 2(4) of the UN Charter focuses on the sovereignty of the "State" not the "Head of State". The entire premise of the press conference was that the US felt the "Head of State" was a criminal, and that their actions in apprehending the "Head of State" were justified and not directed at the "State" itself, but in the "State"'s support. There is limited protection for the "Head of State" in Article 2(4), but the concern would be the violation of sovereignty by the UN General Assembly, which, of course, has no real teeth against the US. It seems that the premise is that the US is going to state that there was a limited impact on the sovereignty of Venezuela itself, and the Maduro regime was given multiple opportunities to surrender, and the legitimate winners of the election (and thus the "State" of Venezuela) signed off on this violation of sovereignty. It is a major stretching of the truth, but this song and dance has been done before. They will then, in essence, dare other members of the UN GA to sign off on a resolution condemning them, even though many states agree with this action, and any non-binding resolution has no real teeth against the US. You might get enough countries to sign it to pass the GA, but it won't be an overwhelming condemnation, and anything that would be binding would then have to go to the UN Security Council, which the US would then veto. Do I think it is "legal" under international law? The beauty is probably in the eye of the beholder on this one, and it will be argued with all sorts of carve-outs and moral justifications about what has been used in the past. I would suggest that it is probably a bit sketchy for me personally, but we haven't even gotten into the Monroe Doctrine craziness or how most of international law is as much about "might is right" as anything else. Do I think it is justifiable enough in the world of global politics we live in? Probably so, and regardless, there is no real "penalty" that could be assessed to the US after the fact. What makes this stranger to me on the international front is that "legally", the coup approach would be less of a headache for the US, but would have most likely required the US to start and support an armed revolution that would lay waste to an already impoverished country and cause another wave of regional exodus and eventually require military intervention. Instead, we have a short-term media circus that should fade quickly and will make news again when/if he goes to trial. The world is strange.
  9. That is an interesting argument, but given that all of those happened in international waters, probably not. That is the problem with this legal/illegal argument here, is that this is happening in international waters, with unflagged vessels that are technically not tied to Venezuela and therefore would not be an ongoing military action with a sovereign country. It would take Venezuela to admit that those vessels, and what they are carrying, are theirs under their jurisdiction, which opens a whole other can of worms. This is what makes all of this a mess. Condone it or not, for this to matter in the WPR context the Maduro regime has to say "yes we were running drugs and you knew those boats were ours and so you may be in violation of the WPR "(which has no real enforcement mechanism and would be a pointless exercise from an impeachment standpoint on a topic that has significant populous support) and please make sure you definitely put us in jail in the US longterm or that this is a short term 8 hour operation that is already done and over and it is time to move on to the next thing in the news cycle.
  10. Actually no, Noriega is the precedent for a "head of state". There have been many who have been extradited by force by the US and have then served trial in the US. The defense that they were "kidnapped" has been covered by the US Court of Appeals and has been denied on multiple occasions. One finally made it to the Supreme Court in 1992 (United States v. Alvarez-Machain), which found that his forcible abduction did not bar his trial in the U.S.
  11. I generally try to avoid the cloakroom aspects of these things, but exactly how is this illegal? These types of actions have, in fact, been deemed legal by multiple courts in the United States. People may not like it, but before we get too far over the skis here, the closest, and most famous, comparison to this is probably Manuel Noriega, who had a pending indictment for drug trafficking in the US and was held to be legal by the US court system when brought up at trial. That included deploying tens of thousands of troops to apprehend him. Please remember that there is no head-of-state immunity for indicted criminals in the United States. These types of "kidnappings" have been litigated multiple times and have been found "legal" in the US court of law. So, instead, are we saying it is illegal because Congress wasn't notified prior? The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the president "to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated, and it limits such commitments to 60 days (plus 30 for withdrawal) without congressional authorization or a declaration of war". We haven't even reached the point where this administration would have to notify Congress, much less the 60-day military commitment deadline, to make this illegal under that resolution. This is written with the key being the term "within", not before. Currently, there is no ongoing operation or military intervention. This is all now in the hands of the bureaucrats, CIA, and diplomats. If we decide to do so now, after the fact, to put troops in Venezuela, without an "ask" by the Venezuelan government, then it will eventually fall under the WPR, but right now, no, this is not applicable. If we are "asked" to do so by the current Venezuelan government, that is an act of diplomacy, not an "act of war". This outrage is all about being cut out of the loop and learning about it on the news, just like everyone else. I have to admit that I would be pretty pissed as well as a member of the House or Senate, as it implies that I can't be trusted not to leak this, but that doesn't make it illegal. So, once again, how is this illegal? Are we now arguing about the "sovereignty" of a head of state that the US, EU, and UK all said was illegitimate? Is this because politicians of opposition parties around the globe say so, and are good sound bites for political theater? What "law" is being broken? Are we going to say this in violation of a UN General Assembly statute where we can veto any resolution they hope to enforce on the US? What makes this idea so odd to deal with is that Maduro has multiple indictments from multiple countries around the globe, and so which international law is "legal" and which is not comes into conflict, creating a murky mess at best to navigate. This is something people will complain about for press clippings and sound bites, but not act on because it has direct corollaries to what many others have done in the past, and something that many want done to other "illegitimate" leaders right now. We throw shit around about things being "illegal" all the time from both sides of the aisle, but consistently, when put under scrutiny, they are "legal" under the letter of the law. I might not "like" it morally or agree with the execution of many things, but there is a difference between that and legal. Do I seriously think this was some noble, big-hearted mission from the US, purely out of the goodness of our collective soul, rushing in to feed the hungry, lift up the broke, and save the Venezuelan people like a bunch of caped crusaders and jail the big bad Maduro for the benefit of humanity? Hell no, that is foolish. Is it something that needed to be done? Absolutely. Do I expect that America and American business will come out way ahead financially and politically? Yes. Will the Venezuelan people benefit as well? Absolutely. Make no bones about it, the US will benefit more in the long run in this, but this is still a good thing.
  12. There has been a long-standing, steady echo of the need to make the resort owners whole in South Florida. Bigger yet are the sugar plantations and nickel mines that were nationalized. This would be billions of dollars and would radically change Cuba. Think about how different the Caribbean would be if Cuba were the playground of the US. Make it a rival to Las Vegas with year-round beaches and beautiful Cuban beauties. Make Havana the destination for those looking for a beach vacation instead of Cozumel, the Caymans, or Jamaica. This would hurt Mexico significantly from a tourism standpoint and provide a huge boost to the Gulf economy. It would most likely lead to more stability in the Caribbean and freeze out many of the ideological movements in the region. Lots of the revolutionary mindset and corruption in the Caribbean are byproducts of Cuba's safe haven.
  13. Funny enough, this will probably cause a reverse immigration from a humanitarian standpoint. One, right now 1/2 of Venezuela lives in "extreme poverty" based on the ENCOVI data and 80% in "general poverty". This is significantly worse than the 25% and 10% that was the historical baseline from the early 2000's. Not great, but significantly better than what it is now. One of the significant aspects of the US oil expansion into South America was the amount of cash it flooded the region with. Lots of cash to be made in the pursuit of the black gold in the ground. Lots of outside investors had other reasons to spend in Venezula and a large segment of their population directly benefited from it. The issue of late is the "privatization" of Venezuelan oil production and how they both skimmed off all of the profits and destroyed daily production. They stopped drilling new wells and did limited preventive maintenance on what was there.Because of this, daily production in Venezuela is 1/3 of the production in 2000. Its less than 1/2 of what it was in 2013, when Maduro took over. They, in essence, killed the golden goose. Don't get me wrong, Chevron, Exxon, and ConoccoPhillips, are about the eat, but there will be cash flooding the region and the pitiful standard of living they are currently living under will rise.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.