I doubt anyone is scared that it applies, and simply knows full well that it does apply.

Last time we picked someone up on an International Warrant we ended up in a huge clusterfuck with China. And the US simply ignored their own warrant and stuck us with her because they didn't want to piss off China (apparently anyway).

Now imagine that clusterfuck except it's entirely the current US Government. China at least operate like they're adults for the most part, I don't agree with them on basically anything, but they were not about to launch military attacks against us to get the Huawei CTO back. Now ask yourself, if we forced that plane to land, and arrested Netanyahu for the purpose of dragging his ass to the Hague, how will the current US Government respond?

I'd put money on them AT LEAST going down the same path they did in Venezuela, and use their military to kidnap both Netanyahu and likely kill/kidnap our leaders as well. What position do you think that would put Canada in? Do you believe NATO would assist us? Would that assistance matter at all against the US?

The simple answer is no one would assist us at all. Just like with China except with much more severe consequences for us.

Now lets take Canada out of it. How would the US respond if France, Italy, or Greece forced that plane to land for the same purposes of arresting Netanyahu? The answer is the same. Honestly the answer is likely the same even WITHOUT the current US Government.

They're not our allies, and they do not abide by the rule of law. They're bullies and the only thing they care about is money and power.

Ironic

The moral philosopher Peter Singer, along with Kenneth Roth,[5] has cited Israel's prosecution of Adolf Eichmann in 1961 as an assertion of universal jurisdiction. He claims that while Israel did invoke a statute specific to Nazi crimes against Jews, its Supreme Court claimed universal jurisdiction over crimes against humanity.[59]

Eichmann's defense lawyer argued that Israel did not have jurisdiction on account of Israel not having come into existence until 1948. The Genocide Convention also did not come into effect until 1951, and the Genocide Convention does not automatically provide for universal jurisdiction. It is also argued that Israeli agents obtained Eichmann illegally, violating international law when they seized and kidnapped Eichmann, and brought him to Israel to stand trial. The Argentinian government settled the dispute diplomatically with Israel.[60]

Israel argued universal jurisdiction based on the "universal character of the crimes in question" and that the crimes committed by Eichmann were not only in violation of Israel law, but were considered "grave offenses against the law of nations itself".[60] It also asserted that the crime of genocide is covered under international customary law. As a supplemental form of jurisdiction, a further argument is made on the basis of protective jurisdiction. Protective jurisdiction is a principle that "provides that states may exercise jurisdiction over aliens who have committed an act abroad which is deemed prejudicial to the security of the particular state concerned".[60]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction

Holy American exceptionalism!

must be from the harambe dimension

Link?

https://antipode.com/pages/flight-path

This one's better...

https://liveflightstracker.com/blog/why-planes-sometimes-take-strange-routes/

Edit: I agree with xeroxcool below...

Agreed, they are handling Trump correctly, but that's pretty much the only good point I can give them. They also want to pass a law that would be disastrous for web privacy

"to see" as if they don't request it ahead of time. I don't know what's worse, that they think people are morons with this bullshit lip service or the actual morons that would defend the current administration because "it's unpatriotic and we have to stand by the government during the attacks from the US".