EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Cheney Throws Down Gauntlet, Defies Prosecution for War Crimes
U.S. courts have long held that waterboarding, where water is poured into someone's nose and mouth until he nearly drowns, constitutes torture. Our federal War Crimes Act defines torture as a war crime punishable by life imprisonment or even the death penalty if the victim dies.
Under the doctrine of command responsibility, enshrined in U.S. law, commanders all the way up the chain of command to the commander-in-chief can be held liable for war crimes if they knew or should have known their subordinates would commit them and they did nothing to stop or prevent it.
Why is Cheney so sanguine about admitting he is a war criminal? Because he's confident that either President Bush will preemptively pardon him or President-elect Obama won't prosecute him.
Both of those courses of action would be illegal.
First, a president cannot immunize himself or his subordinates for committing crimes that he himself authorized. On February 7, 2002, Bush signed a memo erroneously stating that the Geneva Conventions, which require humane treatment, did not apply to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But the Supreme Court made clear that Geneva protects all prisoners. Bush also admitted that he approved of high level meetings where waterboarding was authorized by Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, John Ashcroft, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and George Tenet.
Attorney General Michael Mukasey says there's no need for Bush to issue blanket pardons since there is no evidence that anyone developed the policies "for any reason other than to protect the security in the country and in the belief that he or she was doing something lawful." But noble motives are not defenses to the commission of crimes.
Lt. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal, said, "There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."
Second, the Constitution requires President Obama to faithfully execute the laws. That means prosecuting lawbreakers. When the United States ratified the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, thereby making them part of U.S. law, we agreed to prosecute those who violate their prohibitions.
The bipartisan December 11 report of the Senate Armed Services Committee concluded that "senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees."
Lawyers who wrote the memos that purported to immunize government officials from war crimes liability include John Yoo, Jay Bybee, William Haynes, David Addington and Alberto Gonzales. There is precedent in our law for holding lawyers criminally liable for participating in a common plan to violate the law.
Committee chairman Senator Carl Levin told Rachel Maddow that you cannot legalize what's illegal by having a lawyer write an opinion.
The committee's report also found that "Rumsfeld's authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantánamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there." Those techniques migrated to Iraq and Afghanistan, where prisoners in U.S. custody were also tortured.
Pardons or failures to prosecute the officials who planned and authorized torture would also be immoral. Former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2008 that "there are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq - as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat - are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo."
During the campaign, Obama promised to promptly review actions by Bush officials to determine whether "genuine crimes" were committed. He said, "If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated," but "I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve."
Two Obama advisors told the Associated Press that "there's little-if any - chance that the incoming president's Justice Department will go after anyone involved in authorizing or carrying out interrogations that provoked worldwide outrage."
When he takes office, Obama should order his new attorney general to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate and prosecute those who ordered and authorized the commission of war crimes.
Obama has promised to bring real change. This must be legal and moral change, where those at the highest levels of government are held accountable for their heinous crimes. The new president should move swiftly to set an important precedent that you can't authorize war crimes and get away with it.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
148 Comments so far
Show All"the Constitution requires President Obama to faithfully execute the laws"
Yeah, and it requires that Bush faithfully execute the laws. So? It is abundantly clear that that the US has “two sets of law books” so to speak. The public stage props, the author is talking about, and the secret ones that congress and the president live by.
The second set of books are not secret. JUST FOLLOW THE $$$$$$$!
off with their heads! Off with their heads!
HOPE?
No, rope.
Vlad the Impaler justice would be about right for the war dogs.
Considering Dick Cheney wholeheartedly believes the Dick Nixon "idea" that the President is above the law, it is not surprising he doing his dirty work. Like his former reviled dead boss, it is up the rest of the US government to say otherwise. One hopes that the Obama camp's reticence is merely not tipping their hand until they are in a position of strength to play their cards. It should be stated that prematurely tipping one hands when going up against the Cardinal Richelieu of American politics is a sure way to lose, especially while said eminance grise is still in power.
www.wunderman-comics.com
Sioux Rose
NATE: This would be my hope, too; however, Obama's appointments have just about negated any remaining hope I can sustain.
Ready to try Nader yet? Oh well, at least we don't have to put up with Caribou Barbie and Roe versus Wade has a fighting chance.
No. I will certainly catch my share of flack for my wishes as far as president, but gee, I miss Ron Paul.
.No need to miss him, simply attend the next Stormfront meeting and say hello...
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Nadar is well past relevance unfortunately. His prime moment came in 2000, but he failed to reach the national 5% level. Now he nothing more than a nostalgic weight who. though he speaks truth to power, has strategically lost his bearings. A new younger face is badly needed to replace him; Jello Biafra is my choice.
As for other third party options; as long as the American political system at the legislative federal level is a first-past-the-post bicameral where the upper house (Senate) is not apportioned according to population (which a undoing of would require a radical rewriting of the US Constitution), then third parties are by the very nature of the system, forced into irrelevancy. Even if there is only one effective legislative body (like in the UK, where the House of Commons reigns & the House of Lords exists as a museum piece), the first-past-the-post electoral system by it's very nature encourages a two party system. Ask a UK Liberal Democrat how tough it was to reach their current level in Parliament. Third parties do well in European style legislative democracies where a number of seats are assigned via national proportional representation. It should also be written that political paralysis afflicts these countries as well, as presumptive Prime Ministers have to horse trade in order to build working majorities. While the concept of a third party sounds appealing in an American context, having lived part of my adult life in continental Europe, it is not the magic bullet that many here seem to think it is.
www.wunderman-comics.com
"While the concept of a third party sounds appealing in an American context, having lived part of my adult life in continental Europe, it is not the magic bullet that many here seem to think it is."
Do you think a viable third party would be an improvement here, or that nothing much would change, or that things would become worse than they are now? Do you have any suggestions regarding an approach to bring about real improvement? I ask in all seriousness with no sarcasm intended because you have actually lived the alternative, and I am at my wit's end. You never know where a great idea will arise. And thank you for your input.
-- ekaton, aka d.k.shaw
A Third party would put more ideas into the public discussion; which can be good or bad depending upon the particulars. If the third or fourth party have enough votes to hold the balance of power, they can hold the majority hostage to their specific needs (the ultra-Orthodox parties of Israel are notorious for this) and extract much more resources for themselves than their vote total warrants. Each system has it's strengths and weaknesses: none are ideal for all.
As for improving things here, I paraphrase Plato's "Republic," where it is the responsibility of every citizen to be involved and informed about what is going on with their government. If not, tyranny in many guises takes over.
www.wunderman-comics.com
"As for improving things here, I paraphrase Plato's "Republic," where it is the responsibility of every citizen to be involved and informed about what is going on with their government. If not, tyranny in many guises takes over."
Involved and informed. Aye, and therein lies the rub.
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
.Now this could be the start of something rather interesting.....
Lets get the NadEr thing out of the way. He is, of course, in his seventies so I wont argue for a new face to take up his mantle. I would note that popularity is not, as you seem to imply, some magical assurance of the rightness of his stance. His speeches and his platform agenda are still the very best of the lot, in my own opinion.
But the real meat here is the question of a third party's relevance. I do not quite follow your reasoning with respect to the election of such a third party candidate to the Senate though I can see, with the limited number of senators how election to the House would make a bit more sense. My vision for third party representation leads to more than one or two Senators and a number of Representatives, forming a bloc that would have sway over certain votes. The horse trading of which you speak is precisely why I seek to have such third party folks elected. It seems to me to be the only way to give a backbone to progressive ideas leading to effective legislation.
I see no other way to gain real election reform, remove the influence of money on our legislative process, and of course over the election of our representatives as well. If one starts, as do I, with the premise that the two party system is tainted and in reality a Duopoly then I see no other path for one seeking change to follow, can you recommend another?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Right, let's tackle each subject in order:
Nader: Popularity and rightness are not mutually exclusive, but a necessary component if the goal is to win the public relations battle. Ralph Nader is at a point where this is no longer possible for him, thus the need for a new face and voice. I prefer his 2000 Green Party presidential primary opponent, Jello Biafra, whom due to his performance credentials (ex-vocalist of Dead Kennedys & spoken word artist since their initial break up in 1986) is much better equipped for this in this current media climate than Nader. Jello Biafra also has a sense of humor, in contrast to the quite dour Nader.
Referencing my prior post, the first-past-the-post electoral system is naturally tilted towards a two party system. Systems with more parties than that tend to be in unicameral legislative systems prevalent in continental Europe. It is those settings that Third, Fourth, & even Fifth parties flourish, and can seriously effect policy because their votes are necessary to cobble together coalitions to elect a Prime Minister. That is how a Green became Foreign Minister of Germany. There was very subdued version of this in the recent US Senate because Bernie Sanders & Joe Lieberman caucused with the Democrats. In order for any Third party to have a hope of being effective in either US congressional body, they would have to hold enough votes to command the balance of power.
If you want to blunt the influence of money, then there needs to be the passage of a constitutional amendment stating that only natural persons are covered under 14th Amendment (equal protection under the laws), not corporations. Current case law grants corporations the same protections while they also enjoy the protection the "corporate veil." Also, as long this truism from deceased California State Treasurer Jesse Unruh applies, "Money is the mother's milk of politics," then the problem will remain. The inherent weakness of a republic is the "necessity" of using money to win votes. This was true in Plato's time, and it is certainly true now.
www.wunderman-comics.com
.Thank you for the especially erudite response.
Nader ran, of course, not to win but to put forth his ideas and opinions for the path of this nation,. He did so only after attempting, and failing, to get both parties to adopt them. His campaigns were more instructive and educational. He is, of course, quite dour....but he will always remain a great American to many of us. If you understand the situation we face then perhaps humor is not a key ingredient for a campaigner. I would have no problem with a candidacy of Mr. Biafra
I believe you absolutely spot on in your notation that the first necessity is the revocation of the status of "person-hood" for corporations. It was never decided by a judge, but placed in a decision by an overreaching and agendized clerk of the court. As is your second point necessitating the elimination of the power of money in politics. But , once we reach agreement on these two fine starting points we are left with the path to achieve such necessary change. Do you honestly expect either political party to work to change that which benefits them so greatly?
So, given that it is not in the best interest of the established two party system to alter the status quo that gives them a virtual monopoly in governance, and given that there appears no way to work within either party to change their direction, what is left but independent or third party candidacy? I think that such a presence in the legislature does not have to be quite as large as you intimate in order to play the compromise game that would allow riders and amendments to bills favoring progressive causes.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Humor is an absolute necessity to even hope to win the public relations war in order to put forward the ideas that Nader and Biafra espouse. It especially must be used for that part of the public whom turn off to deadly serious all the time arguments. Used properly, humor actually accentuates and delivers a message with more impact than any straight presentation ever will. Nader's media skills are of the era of three networks delivered via analog television signals. We can admire his accomplishments, but he way overdue in passing on his mantle.
www.wunderman-comics.com
.Humor is a good thing. Eloquence is a nice trait as well. But Nader speaks a truth that shines as bright as any summer sun. If Ralph Nader got the same coverage as the two major candidates, if the debates were open to him and other candidates as well, you might be very surprised to find how persuasive his argument and how eloquent his presentation.
Do you honestly think that Biafra the candidate would garner more attention than Nader in our current system? I think you advocate change for the sake of change and, sadly, change that is no change at all, perhaps because it seems based upon personality, isnt that what got Obama elected?...I am certain that you have read the position paper's of Ralph Nader, I am confident that you found them illuminating and possessing an eloquence unmatched even by the bombastic Obama.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
First things first!
Start with the year 2000 then 2001 then you'll have plenty to investigate.
On the other hand if we don't get our act together this economy will be in the dumps forever.
So what is it? What are we going to do "get even or get ahead"?
How can we see where to go when we don't have a clue how we got to where we are?
We could spend years trying to prosecute in an O.J. fashion and muddy the view. OR We could just go on a fact finding mission with the intent of putting people back in the drivers seat.
Lets try to uncap all the ideas that the Fossil Fuel Energy people buy up and mothball.
Lets help all nations become self-sufficient and non-dependent on other nations to take care of their people, especially the old and poor.
We were supposed to be leaders at that kind of stuff. Sadly we let it turn into a rip-off because we all were profiting from it.
This is a worldwide problem it need a worldwide solution.
Why do you think like a computer? Either/or, why not do both?
Seeking justice can be accomplished at the same time as fixing the economy as well as adressing the environmental concerns. Can't most people walk and chew gum at the same time? Unless they're in Singapore. (gum's banned there)
So, your definition of justice is: "getting even"? I think you are confusing it with "revenge". There is a bit more to justice than that.
Is it your belief that justice hinders "getting ahead"?
This puerile argument will, of course, be the main line of the Obama and Democratic strategists.
It's more like a snotrag he's throwing down than a gauntlet. The greater the insult that way. Odierno says the SOFA is nothing more than a piece of paper and now the Cheesedick pees on everybody's head as a parting gesture. What's Obama going to do? Probably nothing.
Jarhead/If the first President elected since President Bill Clinton cant or wont go by the laws of the United States, then he should be impeached and replaced by someone who will.The Bush thugs must answer for the dirty crimes and the overthrow of the Gov. when the nasty five on the surpreme court selected Bush and the devil himself Cheney.
If you can see outside the box you would clearly see that there is only one political party in our country. It’s the Capitalist Party. It has two branches. And they have a history of not investigating themselves. And even when forced will produce the party line. The political whores in D.C. work for corporate America today. In which party doesn't matter. What matters is serving the needs of American capitalism, where the bottom line is always profits. That's the line used by our politicians to cross out the 'we the people' from the Constitution and insert 'for the profit'.
Placing corporate wants and needs over the needs of the people is essential to keeping Capitalism alive. The media is also essential in meeting the needs of American capitalism. Brains need to be washed and acceptable lifestyles must be set forth to be followed. Capitalism needs ignorant buyers, and our society has produced millions and millions.
Hoa binh
Corporate America also has a tendancy to throw away its trash, that is those who have expended their usefulness, such as Bu$h/Cheney. They are no longer in a position to help the corporations since they no longer in office, so if the people want to imprison or hang them, so what. As the repigs say, it's a dog eat dog world. Human wind chimes for war crimes anyone?
Dicky has actually done the us polity a favour. He's asked the people of the usa to openly state whether they're a nation of laws or men. It's an old arguement, but an important one nevertheless. If Dicky is right, then Nixon did no wrong. What say you, yanks?
Cheney is a lot like Hitler. Both had a fortified bunker to hide in. Both felt that their countries could take whatever they wanted from weaker countries. Both had their seceret police spying on citizens. Both ordered the inprisonment of undesirables. Both used torture on prisoners. Neither felt that they had to obey the law. Both were fasists, (according to most definitions that I've read).
Sioux Rose
EDWARD: And both targeted a "Semite" group as social underdog and projection screen upon which all the angst resulting from so many disastrously unfair policies could be sent. In any case, the hate-based society, or house divided against itself, is a recipe for moral, spiritual and as we now see plainly, economic disaster.
Artists, intellectuals, gypsies, and homosexuals as well. Anyone not part of the club is fair game.
Now, if only the Cheesedick will bite into the glass capsule while simultaneously blowing his brains out, sitting on a couch in a tiny room in an undisclosed location with his Eva Braun, aka George Wanker Bush, who simultaneously does the same thing.
Sioux Rose
MARJORIE COHN: If you by chance peruse this forum, I would like to personally thank you on behalf of CD for tirelessly seeking to hold the Bush administration to the stated, respected laws of our land. Your efforts, like a modern day David, have come up against a monstrous Goliath that indeed sees itself and its mad, deplorable actions as above the law. Thank you for what you do, and do with conscience, intelligence and grace. Happy holidays to you and your family.
Sioux Rose:Marjorie Cohn has her own website and you can email her on the site. www.marjoriecohn.com She's got a lot of her articles there.
Sioux Rose
NY ARTIST: Thank you. I think I will.
The article seems like good argumentation to me, but far worse than authorizing, etc., the war crimes of torture, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and so on also commanded three wars of totally criminal aggression, or two of them and the other case was an act of war of aggression when the aggressed population and government simply had no way to militarily defend itself and its population; and the three are Afghanistan, followed by Iraq, and then Haiti. All of these were [SUPREME INTERNATIONAL CRIMES] that [dwarf] the practice of torturing prisoners, though that still is a war crime and needs to be included in the prosecutions against the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and so on cabal; along with members of Congress who authorized recourse to war against Iraq, and those who authorized what's been done in the case of Haiti. Afghanistan is a case in which I guess we have to accept that too many members of Congress had lost their wits due to the attacks of Sep. 11, 2001, so I'll "excuse" Congress for that major f*cking slip-up.
Anyway, there's some additional news that I believe is related enough to what the topic of Majorie Cohn's article is about.
"Praise from Cheney for Obama’s national security team",
by Bill Van Auken, WSWS.org, Dec 17 2008
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m49685&hd=&size=1&l=e
Perhaps the following article is not unrelated, and if it is, then it should still be of interest to readers who are honest, and so on, people.
"Occupier’s “Justice”
The Trial of Saddam Hussein",
by Kim Petersen, DissidentVoice.org, Dec 17 2008
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m49687&hd=&size=1&l=e
The latter is about the book, 'The Trial of Saddam Hussein', by Dr. Abdul-Haq Al-Ani, Clarity Press, May 1, 2008, and ..., well, I'll just excerpt the opening paragraph.
"Spurred by his abhorrence of imperialism and to better equip himself, Abdul-Haq Al-Ani studied law in Britain. The barrister then applied his knowledge to become, temporarily, part of Saddam Hussein’s defense team and to write The Trial of Saddam Hussein, and even though the book profoundly, cogently, and — on its face — irrefutably exposes the injustice of the trial of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his co-defendants, it exposes much, much more."
Regarding the article about Cheney [praising], and that's literally so, Obama's national security picks (directed picks, for he's most likely not really free to pick as he pleases), I wonder if the picture in the article is "for real", for it shows Obama with, I guess, his two young daughters, along with Condoleeza Rice and the worst fiend of the Bush administration, Richard Cheney. I'd keep my children as far away from all of those people as humanly possible, if I had children, and if they were in at any risk of being near such ... fiends.
I just looked for an article I had read at Rense.com two years ago, or a little more, and on the bogus-ified trial of Saddam Hussein, but not knowing the title or the name of the author makes it difficult to figure out which article this was, without reading all related articles I find on the topic until finding the right one. BUT, I did find the following two articles and the BRussels Tribunal page is much more than about what the singular article at Uruknet is, BT providing a copy of it too, but much more.
"The Myth of the "Anfal Genocide"
Saddam Hussein Did Not "Kill the Kurds"",
by David Hungerford, Al-Moharer.net, Nov 14 2006
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=28255
"Declaration on the legal necessity to halt the proceedings against POW President Saddam Hussain",
The BRussells Tribunal, 29 June 2006
http://www.brusselstribunal.org/HussainAppeal.htm
Now, again, there's far worse crime committed and authorized by the Bush, Cheney, ... cabal, and the U.S. Congress, but putting the latter aside for this moment, well, far worse crimes than those of torture; and it'd be great if legal experts and courts of law would start paying some f*cking attention to these [supreme international crimes], which encompass or consist of all related crimes, but the mere order to conduct wars of aggression, aka against peace, is the crux, it's the worst as well as being the foundation upon which the other crimes can be committed.
Hence stop the supreme crime and the related crimes of lesser degree will also be stopped; but stop the latter and not the former, and you really, then, can't expect to stop either, for the ones you think you'll be stopping will continue to be committed anyway. Perhaps they'd be committed at a lesser scale or in greater secrecy, or both, but they'd surely still be committed. After all, the commanders of the supreme crime will commit other, but related crimes!
What's worse, torture, or dropping bombs on families, villages of innocent civilians, weddings, and so on? The latter! But they're also "part and parcel" of the supreme international crime to begin with! Commit the latter and allow it to continue, and then don't pretend that stopping related crimes of incidentality amounts to any serious gains. Save one life and kill millions; this makes us champs?
MikeCorbeil -- Certainly not. You are right on.
The very simple fact that is missing from these, very poignant comments is this.
The "People of the United States" have all of the power they need. They can either take action, or not. They can assure themselves and even the Great Grandchildren of their Great Grandchildren (now that is projecting isn't it?), that these crimes that VP Cheney, so arrogantly admitted to * will never occur again.
* Although very arrogant and somewhat bloated with his own delusions of importance Mr. Cheney could be right about his assumption. That assumption is painfully obvious; he believes that he will not be prosecuted, otherwise, he would never have been so foolish, so careless, so arrogant. All he needs is for the American people to do nothing. All he needs is for the American People to foolishly believe that they are powerless and he will "walk". Mr. Cheney and Mr.Bush believe that they will be prosecuted.
Your silence will assure that they are correct.
In any criminal prosecution, when the prosecution has a confession of one of the co defendants, the case is simply tried for the sentencing process; unless a plea bargain is made beforehand, and that should never be allowed here in this very serious case. Mr. Cheney "handed" his "head" and that of Mr. Bush, to the American People; it is up to them to reach out and take those heads.
Your silence will be your consent.
They do not have my consent, because I refuse to be silent; do they have yours?
nurembergrevisited@gmail.com
Dick Cheney is the most evil man in the world and as such a lying sack of shit deserves any and all punishmeent for his crimes. I sincerely hope that he is hauled up before the World Court and tried, convicted and hung for his crimes. It is proven that he does not have a conscience.
The World Court has no jurisdiction. Lets go for our own Courts. From your description you must have met him.
Thomas you are mistaken.
The world court does have jurisdiction.
To bring the Bush administration to trial in any other forum besides the "ICJ", would be a travesty of justice, since he would never receive a "fair trial" in that the sentences received in U.S. Courts would eventually be appealed to the Supreme Court which would be expected to be exceptionally lenient.
Mr. Bush handed Saddam Hussein over for trial in Iraqi courts knowing full well that the jurisdiction should have been the "ICJ", since those crimes were committed against all of humanity, and cannot be considered "local".
For a comparison, Richard Nixon's crimes were against the American People, no one lost their lives for their philosophical, religious, or political beliefs. Had he gone to trial, it would have been proper to try him in the U.S. System.
You have often made the "ill placed point" that America would "never give up is sovereignty", but this would not be a case for that argument. Jurisdiction is determined not by the "location" as much as the "nature" of the crime. One small example: If a person(s) transports stolen goods from Okla, to Tex, the jurisdiction goes to Federal level, since state lines were crossed. Then the individual states have "second forum jurisdiction". This is why people are often charged with the most severe crimes first in Fed, then the less severe in state, so as to avoid 'double jeopardy', a Constitutional violation.
In addition, the U.S.A. when standing in judgement over the Nazi and Japanese offenders at Nuremberg and Tokyo, established precedence, and would be bound legally, to follow suit with even their own President and his Administration, for Trial for the same crimes they stood in judgement of others for.
I understand your love of/for your country, but you should not let 'blind love" lead you to make statements that would not hold argument in matters of jurisprudence. No matter how much you wish it to be, it will not happen.
If you do not yet believe that the U.S.A. is part of a "World Community", then you might wish to "pay off" the loans that the U.S.A. has incurred from China in this latest illegal war of aggression, which includes the costs for the crimes mentioned by Mr. Cheney. Then, go to Iraq and begin compensating the entire nation for the death and destruction created by that illegal war of aggression.
Send your check or money order to the Peoples Republic of China, they will be most happy to "cash it". That would most likely be one trillion U.S. Dollars and counting.
Why not spend your energy to a more productive end, since you cannot have a sovereign nation that participates in the international forum, then commits crimes against individuals of other nationalities, on foreign soil, with borrowed money from another nation. Aside from being exceptionally arrogant, it is ridiculously absurd.
join the Americans who are joining forces to bring these criminals to justice in the proper court of jurisdiction, the International Court of Justice.
nurembergrevisited@gmail.com;
you will be welcomed with open arms and minds.
"And the World will be a better place, for you and me" (John Lennon)
countcoup
"You have often made the "ill placed point" that America would "never give up its sovereignty"
Thats a point we disagree on. My point is that I can't concieve of the circumstances (I'm trying to never say never) when the United States of America would cede any part of her sovereignty to a foreign power, a foreign body, court, etc. Nor any governance over her citizens. So my point is that unless America agrees to it, no other entity has any power over our country or our citizens.
The example you used was our law. It does not transpose power to another entity.
"For a comparison, Richard Nixon's crimes were against the American People, no one lost their lives for their philosophical, religious, or political beliefs. Had he gone to trial, it would have been proper to try him in the U.S. System."
I would say a lot of my friends lost their lives because of this SOB and we are certainly in agreement he should have been tried in our courts.
"the U.S.A. when standing in judgement over the Nazi and Japanese offenders at Nuremberg and Tokyo, established precedence"
That would be one view, but you must take into account that these were defeated countries that surrendered unconditionally. Quite a difference I'd say.
China is certainly not part of any world community. They need us a lot more than we need them remember. It wasn't long ago that everyone was saying the Worlds economies are delinked to America, no one needs America anymore, but it hasn't turned out that way at all. Oops! If they want us to pay them off, I say print it up and send it to them! I'm only half joking.
Do you believe if the ICJ has jurisdiction because they say they do? Do they say they do? Thats why I would say that its not blind love that makes me say this, it is simply a fact of jurisprudence.
But...if you can work it out, some how spirit them out of the country and put them on trial, I'll not say a word.
They have sullied our countries honor, caused untold suffering and misery, approved torture when they didn't even have the guts to serve their country, they are not on my Christmas list.
Can we ever compensate Iraq and the Iraqi for this? I doubt it.
I understand what you are saying and its a admirable goal, I just don't see it happening in our lifetime.
Pax
>>Thats a point we disagree on. My point is that I can't concieve of the circumstances (I'm trying to never say never) when the United States of America would cede any part of her sovereignty to a foreign power, a foreign body, court, etc. Nor any governance over her citizens. So my point is that unless America agrees to it, no other entity has any power over our country or our citizens.
Just what do you think a trade deal is Thomas?
Its a surrender of Sovereignity to a World Body like the WTO .
As to no one having power over the United States of America. Rubbish.
No other Country having Jurisdiction over Citizens of the United States of America? again poppycock.
PK
"As to no one having power over the United States of America. Rubbish.
No other Country having Jurisdiction over Citizens of the United States of America? again poppycock"
"Poppycock"? I'd be most interested to know who you think it is that has power over the United States and what country has jurisdiction over the citizens in the United States? And how? I am truly looking forward to hearing who this is.
If you think the US surrenders soverignty by making a trade deal? A novel perspective to say the least.
Thomas -- Right is right. "If you think the US surrenders sovereignty by making a trade deal? A novel perspective to say the least."
It is not in the least novel. It is one of the primary and well-known criticisms of NAFTA, WTO, etc. What the U.S. does in these agreements is sign over the functions of the legislative branch to an unelected and transnational board of elite capitalists. These agreements aren't your grandfather's "trade deals". The decisions made by their boards are broad and deep and effect every U.S. citizen in a wide variety of ways that should be subject to and the basic work of legislation.
They are tools of global capitalism and are in direct conflict with democratic processes (hence sovereignty) worldwide, U.S. included.
They are tools of global capitalism and are in direct conflict with democratic processes (hence sovereignty) worldwide, U.S. included.
Totally agreed!
However we retain the right to cancel these trade agreement at any time, so I stand by my statement.
The statement in question: "If you think the US surrenders sovereignty by making a trade deal? A novel perspective to say the least."
You will agree, I'm sure, not to stand by the words that it is a "novel perpective"? Just a wrong perspective, right?
But you bring up an interesting question. Is it "giving up sovereignty" to give up sovereigny temporarily or conditionally or partially...even unconstitutionally? Seems to me this is a logical and semantic question, but very important because of the consequences.
"However we retain the right to cancel these trade agreement at any time..." Not going to be easy, but let's do it.
Thomas you had best bone up on the law.
1>No foreign country having jurisdiction over american citizens.
This is false. Witness the Jails the world over with AMERICAN Citizens in them. Or the Americans sentenced to death in places like Indonesia for drug smuggling.
Secondly Henry kissinger can not visit a number of countries as warrants have been issued for his arrest even tho he committed no crimes in those countries. This was the same thing that stopped Rumsfled from making a trip to Germany.
The CIA agents who committed kidnappings In Italy are all being tried in absentia and can be arrested if they land anywhere in the EU.
Many countries have laws that allow the arrest of persons even if said persons comitted a crime in another jurisdiction, specifically war crimes..
I would point out in your original statement you claimed No courts have jurisdiction over American Citizens which is far different then No other country can come into America and arrest American Citizens.
I would point out that the United States does not have such a power in other countries EITHER unless it violates the law. Thus your making the point is without meaning. It like stating water is wet.
2>The WTO just as an example ordered the United States Governmnet to repeal the Byrd Amendment, duly passed by your Congress and your country under treaty provisions complied.
Under the NAFTA agreement a Canadian Company sued the Governmnet of California when that Government moved to ban certain fuel additives that they deemed a danger ot the enviroment and the Government of California was forced to drop that provision.
All such trade deals put power into unelected bodies.
I would also point out that the World Court in the Hague ruled on the sea boundaries between Canada and the US when there was a dispute over georges Bank with Canada winning the bulk of the claim.
As to other Countries asserting other power over the US Governmnet I suggest you read on what prompted the bailouts of Fannie Mae and freddie mac wherein the US Governmnet had to guarantee it would pay off holders of that debt.
A great chunk of that debt was held by The Government of China and paulson was told in no uncertain terms that if that debt was not guaranteed China would start dumping the dollar and stop lending the US money.
"I would point out in your original statement you claimed No courts have jurisdiction over American Citizens which is far different then No other country can come into America and arrest American Citizens."
My, apologies, I made the assumption you would know I was speaking of American citizens in America. Which of course is what I did mean. Americans on foreign soil are of course under that Nations laws.
All trade deals may of course be terminated at any time by us or any other ruling that we do not agree to. So I would just say that we do not.
As to the World Court. It has no jurisdiction over us.
.Quite an eloquent dialogue and passionate as well. You Texans never fail to surprise.
For anyone interested in the facts of the matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice
The United States withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986, and so accepts the court's jurisdiction only on a case-to-case basis. Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter authorizes the UN Security Council to enforce World Court rulings, but such enforcement is subject to the veto power of the five permanent members of the Council. Presently there are twelve cases on the World Court's docket.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
The International Criminal Court (ICC or ICCt)[1] was established in 2002 as a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression, although it cannot currently exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression.[2][3] The Court came into being on 1 July 2002 — the date its founding treaty, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, entered into force[4] — and it can only prosecute crimes committed on or after that date.[5]
As of November 2008, 108 states are members of the Court;[6][7][8] A further 40 countries have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute.[6] However, a number of states, including China, Russia, India and the United States, are critical of the Court and have not joined.[citation needed]
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Thanks for telling them what I've been telling them. Perhaps they will believe you, they won't believe me.
All help gratefully recieved!