Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What a bunch of BS. then they need to include Obama. He went into Libya without congress approval, then he sent troops to Africa to help muslim's against the Christians there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest
President Clinton went into Serbia after Congress told him not to. Far wrse than anything Obama or Bush did.
And nobody seemed to care.
And this is why this will never take off because if they go after Bush and Blair, they have to go after Clinton and Obama and the lefties don't like that.
Any country that is a signatory to a treaty has the authority to enforce the treaty.
That means that any country who signed the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has the authority to prosecute war crimes. The country need not have been involved in any conflict, nor do any of the victims need to be citizens of the country that is prosecuting.
That means the Principality of Lichtenstein (if it signed the Convention) can prosecute Bush & Co, and they can prosecute in Lichtenstein, and then can try them in abstentia and then if convicted can issue warrants for execution.
(and yes I emphasized the relevant part of the Convention in Red, Bold, Italic, Underline for the not-to-bright who just can't seem to grasp the concept).
Any country that is a signatory to a treaty has the authority to enforce the treaty.
That means that any country who signed the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has the authority to prosecute war crimes. The country need not have been involved in any conflict, nor do any of the victims need to be citizens of the country that is prosecuting.
That means the Principality of Lichtenstein (if it signed the Convention) can prosecute Bush & Co, and they can prosecute in Lichtenstein, and then can try them in abstentia and then if convicted can issue warrants for execution.
(and yes I emphasized the relevant part of the Convention in Red, Bold, Italic, Underline for the not-to-bright who just can't seem to grasp the concept).
Doesn't matter. We're a sovereign nation like any other sovereign nation. The only piece of paper or "treaty" we answer to is our own Constitution, and the laws and institutions it set up to prosecute our leaders at home. We don't answer to international-anything or world-anything. And treaties can be broken. That isn't nice, but it happens and can happen. What are they going to do about it? We have our military in Europe and Asia, and now in Australia, protecting their asses as it is, because they are too cheap and lazy to do it themselves. Ok, lets end the American world hegemony, if that is what they want. Lets stop protecting them with our military, get totally out of NATO, stop all the foreign aid and the trade we have with them. Go at it completely alone, guys. Good luck with that.
Doesn't matter. We're a sovereign nation like any other sovereign nation. The only piece of paper or "treaty" we answer to is our own Constitution, and the laws and institutions it set up to prosecute our leaders at home.
That isn't how international law works. If you were a rinky dinky country, like Serbia, they'd be swarming all over you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmforte
We don't answer to international-anything or world-anything.
Then it is hypocritical to sign the treaties right? And then it's even more hypocritical when you demand they be enforced on others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmforte
And treaties can be broken.
Only by the president. Neither the House, nor Senate, nor the Supreme Court can abrogate a treaty. That power is reserved for the Chief Diplomat, who is the president.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmforte
What are they going to do about it?
As I pointed out years ago on this forum, since I happen to know something about International Relations and International Law, Bush & Co would never leave the US...
...and they haven't. Because if they do, they are subject to arrest and prosecution by every country on this Planet that is a party to the treaties that were violated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmforte
Lets stop protecting them with our military, get totally out of NATO, stop all the foreign aid and the trade we have with them. Go at it completely alone, guys. Good luck with that.
You would end up on the losing end of the deal. You need them, but they don't need you. This is 2011, not 1941.
That isn't how international law works. If you were a rinky dinky country, like Serbia, they'd be swarming all over you.
Then it is hypocritical to sign the treaties right? And then it's even more hypocritical when you demand they be enforced on others.
Only by the president. Neither the House, nor Senate, nor the Supreme Court can abrogate a treaty. That power is reserved for the Chief Diplomat, who is the president.
As I pointed out years ago on this forum, since I happen to know something about International Relations and International Law, Bush & Co would never leave the US...
...and they haven't. Because if they do, they are subject to arrest and prosecution by every country on this Planet that is a party to the treaties that were violated.
You would end up on the losing end of the deal. You need them, but they don't need you. This is 2011, not 1941.
I stand by post. We are a sovereign nation, and still the wealthiest and most powerful one on the planet. I'll care when that changes. And if we need them but they don't need us, why is our military the ones defending them? Put your money (and your lives) where your mouth is!! I am an isolationist at heart, so that would be just fine with me!!
Perhaps you can be educated about why examples of other criminal behavior from other individuals does nothing to excuse the criminal behavior being outlined on this thread?
Comprehension problems on your side? The post I replied to admitted that he knew nothing of the subject, except that he feels perfectly fine shooting off his mouth about it. Who, besides you, expressed a comment on excusing criminal behavior?
Quote:
This trial of Bush and Blair is a step in the right direction .... it won't likely produce any results such that was seen at Nuremberg ... but it sends a message that people around the world recognize genocide regardless of who engages in it, and a reminder to those in power now, that their actions are being monitored.
Your opinion, and welcome to it. But remember, it is only your opinion.
People "around the world" only recognize genocide when it serves their own purposes. Similar to you attempting to hijack this thread to suit your own purposes.
Quote:
It's never too late to start behaving like civilized, conscious people ... unless you don't start now
Try telling that to the rest of the world, especially the middle east where they stone those that they disapprove of or kill the women in the family because they had an unapproved thought.
Start now, you have a long way to go.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
