Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Dan, this is purely hypocritical BS. To call Americans treasonous for attempting to hold the leadership of the U.S. to the same laws that the U.S. helped write, and hold other nations to, is the height of hypocrisy, and to the extent that your comment seeks to usurp international law the U.S. helped to write, your comment appears to support illegal acts by our own government’s leaders. Given that we are a nation of laws, not men, that would appear to smack of its own treason.

Dan,
So, what you’re saying is that we should throw the book at those at the bottom, that commited the actual crimes, and slap the wrists of those at the top, that looked the other way, so that these crimes could occur?

“In a way I am here with a very heavy heart… I would have preferred that our own courts would have taken what happened seriously… but that is not the case in the United States at the moment,” CCR President Michael Ratner said in Berlin.

Of course it’s not the case. OUR courts require evidence. If there was any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Rumsfeld or anyone else, it would certainly have been brought up during the election. Congress has investigated this, after all.

According to the article, the case is not based on international law, but a German law, which has no jurisdiction over the US.

David and Rocky,
“Your comment appears to support illegal acts by our own government’s leaders.”
“So, what you’re saying is that we should throw the book at those at the bottom, that commited the actual crimes, and slap the wrists of those at the top, that looked the other way, so that these crimes could occur?”

If you two have any evidence of illegal activity by our military leadership, you might want to contact your senators.

Military courts have already provided ample evidence as have the quotes of Donald Rumsfeld and the President himself in stipulating that the Bush Admin. would not abide the Geneva Conventions while engaging the war with terrorists.

The grounds for suit are there. Whether guilt can be ascribed to Rumsfeld or not, is a matter of fact to be determined by a court of law.

As for Congress, that is a laugh. This Republican Congress changes laws to avoid negative consequences for its GOP friends like Tom DeLay. Get real!

So let’s see.

Rumsfeld should be hung because the Abu Graib prisoner abuse happened under his watch and he must have known what was going on and did not stop it.

Kofi gets a pass at the UN because he couldn’t possibly be blamed for everything that goes wrong in the lower ranks. (How can he possibly be hands on with everything?)He gets a pass on anything his son may have been involved in because they don’t know each other’s business.

Chirac is just the President of France and has no control over what business people in his country do. If anyone in France was involved in arming Saddam or helping him skim money from Oil for Food it is not the responsibility of Chirac because he couldn’t possibly know everything or be everywhere all the time.

It is the big bad leaders of the U.S. who should be found guilty first. No innocent before proven guilty here. The rest of the world gets a pass or at least the benefit of the doubt.

We do a fine enough job fueling the Anti-U.S. Propaganda Machine. The rest of the world just plays it back. Our ‘enemies’ don’t have to find their own reasons to hate us, we give them plenty when we make accusations without facts to back them up.

Since when did we become subject to the Germans and German law? I don’t recall the US giving up our soverignty to German or “International” law. There are prosecutions and even at least one General who has paid for this. To hold the Secretary of Defence responsible for the actions of a few is ridiculous. What would you have? Hold the Senators from Mass responsible if someone in their state commits a crime? Perhaps the Governor?
Let the system work and if you don’t like it elect someone who agrees with you. Untill then complain to those who didn’t lose the election and stop coming up with this silly crap to “get even” with those who clearly did

If anyone in France was involved in arming Saddam or helping him skim money from Oil for Food…

Don’t forget about the US oil companies and private individuals (GOP contributors all) who are also implicated. I find myself wondering if that’s why Bush and the conservative media aren’t pursuing an investigation harder, preferring to just use the allegations to undermine the UN rather than follow the leads wherever they may go.

Jack, when we ratify and international treaty, we’re subject to “international” law. And if it turns out the troopers were just following orders, like they say they were, then their superiors are complicit all the way up the line.

BTW, the way I remember it, Republicans in Congress were (still are) instrumental in following the abuse allegations wherever they lead - even to Rumsfeld, Tenet, Ashcroft, Gonzales, and Bush. I don’t think the Congressional investigations have ended. Have they?

The way I see it is that Rummy wrested control of post-war Iraq from the State Department and said he would have complete control and therefore be completely accountable. Post-war Iraq has had quite a few problems and Rummy has taken the blame for none of it. I wonder what he thinks “accountable” means?

David,

“The grounds for suit are there. Whether guilt can be ascribed to Rumsfeld or not, is a matter of fact to be determined by a court of law.
As for Congress, that is a laugh. This Republican Congress changes laws to avoid negative consequences for its GOP friends like Tom DeLay. Get real!”

You’re telling me to get real??? Read the constitution! There are no grounds for a suit since German laws don’t apply to us.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. – Article VI, US Constitution.

There is nothing in the constitution that says German laws or courts have any jurisdiction over our government officials.

I don’t remember hearing of congress changing any laws having to do with this situation. Congress investigated this. The democrats in congress were involved in the investigation. If they had found any evidence of illegal activity on Rumsfeld’s part, don’t you think we would have heard about it from John Kerry during his campaign?

This is amazing on this one . I know it is wrong for people to do that to others . I have to wonder if this is political for some reason . Yes , the people that allowed this to happen should be dealt with and not have just their wrist popped like a 3 year old . The people that did it need to be held accountalbe too . The officals that turned the other way need to be dealt with too . This makes the US look worse to other countries when things like that happen over in other countries . They hate us anyway , so why make it worse with things like this going on . I have to say that they need to think about the perception that they are sending to other countries . It is no wonder that people over seas have the concept that they do about Americans when things like this happen . I also have to say the media is just as awful because they keep bringing it up and that makes it worse and fuels the fire to the way they look at the United States .

William Kunstler, son of a proctologist and noted defender of undesirable clients, was one of the founders of CCR.

Some of his clients included the Chicago Eight after the violent demonstrations at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, the prisoners who rioted at Attica Prison, Mafia boss John Gotti and Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who was convicted in 1995 of conspiring to blow up the World Trade Center.

That the CCR would file suit in another country to charge U.S. officials with torture is hardly surprising, given the history.

Certain people here seem very quick to judge. Do people responsible for prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib need to be held to account? Of course. But the German government sure as hell does not have that responsibility or that right.

Only OUR government has that kind of jurisdiction and Congress is actively investigating the situation (see AP’s link). Several people are on trial and some have already been convicted.

Our courts require evidence to convict, so the CCR files a case with a government that is obviously biased against the US. They told Germany that our government is not investigating, which is a blatant lie. This is nothing more than an attempt to bring down certain people in our government without proof of guilt. Treason is a good word to use to describe it.

Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. – US Constitution Article III Section 3

“I don’t know where this will lead but certainly if war crimes have been committed it should lead to significant jail sentences for people” - CCR President Michael Ratner

Using a foreign power to illegally assist in the conviction with out evidence of US military officials during wartime, and advocating their removal and possible imprisonment is akin to levying war and giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Using a foreign power to illegally assist in the conviction with out evidence of US military officials during wartime, and advocating their removal and possible imprisonment is akin to levying war and giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

This is as bad as CCR’s suit against Rummy.

Joseph
Maybe I’m going a bit overboard calling it treason, but it’s very close. It’s an attempt to circumvent the constitution. They are going being the backs of the President, Congress and the Judiciary.
CCR is trying to get a foreign power to assist in removing and imprisoning American government and military officials in order to hinder our war fighting capability. If it’s not treason, it’s pretty damn close.

Here is another embarrassing attempt (aimed at Bush this time). Oh those silly Canadians.

I don’t know, TheTraveler. I tend to think aid and comfort to the enemy is more literal and direct. You know, like putting some al Qaeda guys up for a night. Telling them where to place a bomb out of sight on a bridge for maximum effect. Getting them a drivers license. That sort of thing. Citizens who feel it is their civic duty to go after potential villians among our own aren’t traitors. They may be over-zealous but not traitors.

Joseph,
I know I’m over the top calling them traitors, but they’re close enough.
You called them, “citizens who feel it is their civic duty to go after potential villians among our own.” That’s as maybe, but it’s not their place. We elect a government for a reason, and that government is taking care of the problem.
This is, in my opinion, nothing but an attempt to weaken the military and hurt the Bush administration. There is nothing else the suit could possibly accomplish. Even if the suit was won and we abided by it, which we wouldn’t, there is nothing good that could possibly come of it. It would hurt our efforts in Iraq and our ability to fight terror, and it would give the rest of the world more unconstitutional power over us.

Now, if Congress finds that Secretary Rumsfeld has broken a law or a treaty, then by all means they should call for his removal and possible indictment. But that’s THEIR call. Not ours. Not the CCR’s. And certainly not the Germans.
If Germany has a problem with some of our government-appointed officials, then they should take it up to with our government or the UN. Otherwise, they have no say.

Well, yeah. Those citizens who feel they must pursue some form of prosecution against Rumsfeld should not create their own court and try him by proxy. They should use our established systems. I agree. I think this CCR thing is silly. Germany doesn’t have jurisdiction over Rummy.

My first comment was just to touch on the larger subject that Rummy asked for complete control in exchange for complete accountability. It is certainly arguable that he has failed and should pay his due. This is not to say that the CCR suit by way of German courts is the way to do it.

Joseph,
What control did the State Department have that he wanted?

“It’s something that the United States does not do.” - Donald Rumsfeld, March 23, 2003.

“The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.” - Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions (that is including the one relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, and the one relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.)
See also: Principles of international co-operation in the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity

“Our extensive research in Iraq suggests that this is not an isolated incident. It is not enough for the USA to react only once images have hit the television screens.” - Amnesty International, April 30, 2004.

“It is becoming clear that the ill treatment and torture of prisoners by the U.S. military in Iraq were not limited to isolated incidents, but reflected, in the words of the U.S. army’s own inquiry, ‘systemic and illegal abuse of detainees.’ The brazenness with which the U.S. soldiers involved conducted themselves suggests they thought they had nothing to hide from their superiors.” - Human Right Watch, May 3, 2004.

Related: U.S. Charged With War Crimes - The Evidence File (Court case against General Franks in Brussels).

The Traveler, usually the purview of post-war occupation falls to the State Dept. Rummy wanted it for the Pentagon.

I’m not sure how I feel about our government officials being tried for war crimes by other governments with no direct involvement in the conflict in question. However, I am amazed by those who insist that it was all the fault of the soldiers that abuse went on. If you’ll all recall, when evidence of abuse was shown to Congress it was in the form of 1500 photos taken by soldiers. That number again — 1500. We’re not talking about the odd snapshot hidden in a cigar box, we’re talking about many scrapbooks full of fun photos to share. These soldiers weren’t trying to hide anything, and the only reason anything was ever done is because the public got wind of it.

I don’t know whether I’d go so far as to say Rummy is a war crimnal, but he’s certainly an arrogant jackass and it’s very likely he knew what was going on in the Iraqi prisons. — Or is this yet another intelligence failure?

I see there is another Jack again that is not me. Jack is too common a name and I am going to give it up. From this day forward to the end of time, this writer formerly known as only Jack will become “Jack (Matel”

I see there is another Jack again that is not me. Jack is too common a name and I am going to give it up. From this day forward to the end of time, this writer formerly known as only Jack will become “Jack (Matel”

It seems to me that german citizens… german officials, even, were once tried for war crimes by members of foreign governments. The Nuremberg trials, to be specific.

Why are members of our own government above being tried for international war crimes in this manner?

Does jurisdiction for the trial of war crimes only fall to the victors in a war? Would we need to be invaded and occupied to be held legally responsible for war crimes, if they were indeed committed?

What I guess it really comes down to is, why are we so afraid of being held responsible for our actions by the international community? By all rights, this should not have had to be brought under German law, it should have been brought under the International Criminal Court, but this country has repeatedly set roadblocks in place to prevent its citizens from falling under the jurisdiction of that court. Why? What are we afraid of?

I submit that the only answer to this question that makes sense to me is that we are afraid of an honest verdict. We are afraid that, if put on trial for our actions, the international community will find us guilty.

TheTraveler, you are missing the big picture. It matters not in the big picture if the U.S. acknowledges the results of a suit filed and tried in Germany. What will matter is whether the facts are presented and point directly to Rumsfeld’s media quoted comments that the Geneva Convention shall not apply to American treatment of terrorist enemies. If the suit finds culpability with Rumsfeld, the news will resound around the world, and, international cooperation which Bush is seeking in Canada and elsewhere will suffer.

It is not about jurisdiction. It is about determining who was responsible for the widespread prisoner abuse by the US agents and military. Last report indicates abuses took place in over 100 prisoner retention facilities during that same period of time. Since the GOP controlled government will not hold its own responsible for their actions (see story of Tom DeLay and changing of rules to insulate him), CCR and the Germans are willing to take up that role. If it finds culpability, it will have consequences for the U.S. and Rumsfeld’s and Bush’s recorded public statements that Geneva Convention rules will not apply to the US war against terrorism will be held responsible for those consequences by foreign nations - and that will hurt our efforts in the world.

David,

I don’t know what are the “efforts in the world” you are referring to that need some culpabilities to be ignored or some criminals to be whitewashed, but don’t you think that someone who can say “I’m sorry” and fully assume his reponsibilities has a better credibility when he talks about “bringing Justice/Freedom/Democracy to the world” ?

What’s worth a Democracy that need LIES ?

David,
This has nothing to do with guilt or innocence or finding who‘s responsible. If they had actual evidence, real evidence against the people they‘ve named, they would have gone to Congress. Or the news media… I can think of several news organizations that would pay dearly for that kind of story.
The case was brought up specifically for the purpose of hurting the Bush administration and weakening America in general. I assume the rest of the world, no matter what their opinion is about us, would realize that no matter the outcome. I doubt the results of an obvious sham trial will affect world opinion that much.

I won’t argue with you about Rumsfeld being responsible, because neither one of us really knows. Keep this in mind, though, before you prejudge: stating your beliefs on a subject and giving an order to enforce those beliefs are two very different things.

Jarin,
This case illustrates precisely why we should NOT be involved in a world court. A group of people who want to weaken the American government and discredit government officials bring a case with no evidence before a government that is biased against America. Doesn’t that scare you, just a little bit?
America is run by the American people. The international community should NEVER have the kind of power you are suggesting.
Do you really think other countries would be fair against us in a case such as this? Of course not. Do you think we would be fair against them if the tables were turned? Probably not. I say let’s keep our sovereignty.

TheTraveller,

> America is run by the American people.

Typo ? Did you mean “was run” ?

They opened themselves up for it. We can’t spend decades using human rights abuses (legitimately or not) to throw the book at people or take military action, and then suddenly start committing abuses of our own. Especially when part of our reason for going to war is to establish Democracies that respect human rights.

Excuse, excuses, excuses. This Republican government has become better at denying problems than it is at solving them. I know some might ask me to provide them with some alternate “good plan” in foreign policy, but the truth is, the Republican’s plan here is that when circumstances make their plans obsolete, they’ll pretend like everything’s going alright.

Rumsfeld should have resigned. Or somebody. People were responsible, and those people should have been fired or dealt with otherwise. How much has that happened? Not much. Typically when things go wrong, they at least fire somebody. Here, in this administration, the only thing they’ll ask your resignation for is disagreement.

AmigaPhil,

> America is run by the American people.
Typo ? Did you mean “was run” ?

It wasn’t a typo. If you think back, we had an election early last month.

So, Traveler, we should release Noriega?

So, Traveler, we should release Noriega?
??? Is this a new topic? Not knowing much about it, I’ll have to say no opinion…

Here’s an interesting article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=71000001&refer=germany&sid=aDkz0cBaxYgs
Perhaps the Germans should follow their own law… Maybe some of them will come over here and sue their government!

Traveler,

”??? Is this a new topic? Not knowing much about it, I’ll have to say no opinion…”

It’s ok for our government to go to other countries kidnap a sitting head of state, try and imprison him, but to file suit against our government is treason?

>>> America is run by the American people.
>> Typo ? Did you mean “was run” ?
>It wasn’t a typo. If you think back, we had an election early last month.

Ha yeah… election. Maybe soon that will be the only thing left that could define “Democracy” as we used to dream it (“A government of the people, by the people, for the people.”)

Hey Noth
“William Kunstler, son of a proctologist and noted defender of undesirable clients, was one of the founders of CCR.”

I belive that “undesirable” clients deserve representation too.

From
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Chicago7/KunstlerW.htm
“His clients over the years included Lenny Bruce, H. Rap Brown, Stokely Carmichael, American Indian Movement leaders, Jack Ruby, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and Islamic terrorists.”

BTW, it was the Chicago 7 trial, it would be eight if you include Kunstler who also served 4 years in prison as a result of the trial.

Rocky,

“It’s ok for our government to go to other countries kidnap a sitting head of state, try and imprison him…”

Like I said, I don’t know as much about it as I probably should, so I won’t argue the point. I really don’t see a connection, though.

“but to file suit against our government is treason?”

I didn’t say that. Sue the government if you feel you have a case. Just don’t do it for the sole purpose of weakening our country. THAT’s treason, in my opinion.
You have every right to sue the government. In fact, it happens quite a bit. Just do it in a constitutional manner. Evidence is helpful as well.

AmigaPhil,
If you know of a way to put leaders into power that’s better than election, I’m sure we’d all love to hear about it.

Jarin said Why are members of our own government above being tried for international war crimes in this manner?

[…] What I guess it really comes down to is, why are we so afraid of being held responsible for our actions by the international community?

The rationale I remember hearing is to protect our troops, which since VietNam has been a very popular rationale for avoiding scrutiny and criticism. Since America is god’s gift to the world, we are obviously above something as petty as war crimes and therefore any charges of such are merely specious and vindictive. Of course if any hard evidence of actual war crimes does arise, this is never a systemic problem but simply a problem of a few bad apples, as it were. I doubt I will ever see the day when the US acquiesces to the ICC.

TheTraveler said The case was brought up specifically for the purpose of hurting the Bush administration and weakening America in general.

Come on, TheTraveler, enough with the sanctimonious rhetoric. The truth only hurts the guilty. If Rummy is innocent then there isn’t anything to worry about.

Traveler,

Maybe Ken Starr was going after Clinton “for the sole purpose of weakening our country”. In the short time, at least, that was certainly the effect of his trying to prosecute the President.

Or, alternatively, maybe he had nothing against Clinton personally and thought that he ultimately making the country stronger…

NOTH,

Do you know who defended the British soldiers who perpetrated the Boston Massacre? John Adams.

Your analogy to proctology is telling. It’s a dirty job, but if you ever have a cancerous tumor up your arse a proctologist is going to be your best friend in the world.

“For the sole purpose of weakening our country” — because all those who oppose us are evil and have hidden agendas and all those who support us are good and kind and above reproach.

It’s not unpatriotic to believe that Donald Rumsfeld’s tossing out of the Geneva Convention is wrong and that he should be held accountable for it, nor does it “weaken our country” to make sure our appointed officials adhere to the contracts we’ve agreed to as a country. To tell the truth, I’m embarrassed that it’s taking another country to make our government accountable. We should be taking care of this ourselves, instead of playing the patsy game.

And Europeans wonder why we don’t sign on to the International Criminal Court.

The German court has no jurisdiction. The action is meant merely to harass the United States and to gain notoriety and fund raising power for the Center for Constitutional Right. It is a cynical and craven act, but it doesn’t meet the test of treason.

As I read it, the German court has not yet decided to take action. Maybe they will do the right thing and send the CCR lawyers back to the U.S. with nothing. Let’s hope. Otherwise, what does this do?

1. Makes the Germans look stupid and/or impotent, since they have no authority to do anything. Rumsfeld could stand on the steps of that court and they couldn’t arrest him.
2. It makes the U.S. much less likely to cooperate with multilateral institutions. American opponents of these things always argue that there are too many wierdos in this world to put our fate in the hands of others. This German court has just provided some educated fools as evidence.
3. CCR gets a lot of publicity and can more easily raise money among the lefty chattering classes.
4. It makes leftist all over the world feel good. This is what they like the most. They can make a statement with no chance anything will happen as a result. Leftist heaven is to make a declaration with no consequences. It provides another grievance to add to their litany of usually imagined slights.
5. It makes realists despise the lefties even more and gives them more reasons to stay away from them.

You all may recall when a Belgian court threatened to indict Tommy Franks. The Belgian government had to intervene and the court ignominiously backed down. This made some Americans happy, but was bad all around. It is like when your kid does something really stupid and you have to punish him by taking away something he should have, but is too immature to use properly. It is sad for all parties.

Joseph, Woody and Alejo,

Read my posts again. I never claimed Rumsfeld was not responsible for Abu Ghraib.
I’m simply saying there’s a right way and a wrong way to go about finding out.

“It’s not unpatriotic to believe that Donald Rumsfeld’s tossing out of the Geneva Convention is wrong and that he should be held accountable for it”

I never said it was. But let’s make sure he was responsible for what happened at Abu Ghraib BEFORE we decide his guilt. Again, making a rule and enforcing it are two different things.
You three seem to want Rumsfeld to take complete responsibility no matter what happened. What ever became of “innocent until proven guilty?” Why not let Congress finish investigating before we complain about the outcome? There are enough democrats and moderate republicans in congress that if any real evidence of responsibility is found, the guilty will be held responsible. I hope.

“Nor does it “weaken our country” to make sure our appointed officials adhere to the contracts we’ve agreed to as a country.”

It does if we go about it in an unconstitutional manner. It does if we allow other governments to have power over us. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

“TheTraveler said The case was brought up specifically for the purpose of hurting the Bush administration and weakening America in general.
Come on, TheTraveler, enough with the sanctimonious rhetoric. The truth only hurts the guilty. If Rummy is innocent then there isn’t anything to worry about.”

Even though nothing is really going to come of it, this case was brought up for that purpose. If this was really about human rights of the Geneva Convention, don’t you think CCR would have brought it to our courts or the UN?
Sanctimonious rhetoric? How can this case possibly determine guilt or innocence in a fair manner? CCR can’t possibly have the “true” facts of the case at their disposal, and the German government certainly doesn’t.

Just to further clarify my position:

If they had brought this case before American courts, I would have no problem with it.
And if they had made a complaint to the UN about Geneva Convention violations, I probably would not have a problem with that either.

I want justice to be served, but I want it done in the proper manner.

TheTraveler —

I’m not sure about the constitutionality of our governmental figures being indicted by foreign courts either, nor am I advocating it. However, to say that CCR is going after Rumsfeld merely to hurt our country is an implication that there could be no good reason to do it.

Alejo,

“To say that CCR is going after Rumsfeld merely to hurt our country is an implication that there could be no good reason to do it.”

That is what I’m implying… but only in this specific case.
I agree this DOES need to be investigated, but it must be done by the proper people and in the proper manner.

TheTraveler —

Well, I guess we agree that justice must be served. The difference is that you feel the CCR must be operating out of selfish interest and that our own government will police itself. I’m withholding judgment on both of those issues.

Traveler,
“Like I said, I don’t know as much about it as I probably should, so I won’t argue the point. I really don’t see a connection, though.”

The connection is, that we here in America see it as our job to make the world accountable to our standards (what ever those are), and if we step on some toes in the process, we will not be held accountable to the rest of the world.
It is because of our arrogance, that the rest of the world dispises us.

It makes leftist all over the world feel good. This is what they like the most. They can make a statement with no chance anything will happen as a result. Leftist heaven is to make a declaration with no consequences. It provides another grievance to add to their litany of usually imagined slights.

Statements like that certainly don’t make your side look any better, jack. I’m a pretty hardcore liberal and I’ve already expressed my displeasure with this CCR troublemaking.

Sorry, Joseph. That is a problem with sweeping generalities. Meddling lawyers annoy me everywhere. When they reach across borders, it is even worse. I know some leftists that are very consequent people. The ones doing things like this, however, are not among them.

Changing the subject a little, we Americans are also very guilty of similar mischief. I am not a blame America first guy, but I have seen our own courts reach into foreign places they should stay away from. Usually it is for a “good” cause. It is tempting for everyone, including us, which is precisely why I oppose making things like the International Criminal Court too strong. You can’t trust judges with that kind of power.

Extraterritorial justice should be carefully considered and never become a routine matter. The Nuremberg tribunals were set up to try war criminals because there was no other competent venue. The same can be said where there are failed or rogue states. But in the case of a functioning democracy, be it the U.S. or any of the other countries with functioning judicial systems, we have no right to intervene. We Americans shouldn’t sue Germans for things they didn’t do in America and Germans shouldn’t sue Americans in similar circumstance. It is sometimes more complicated, but generally the court where the crime is committed should have sole jurisdiction. The others have no business sticking the noses in.

Jack (M)—

Perhaps if you avoided referring to people as divided between “leftists” and “realists” it would lessen the appearance of sweeping generalities. Those on the left most likely consider themselves to be realists as well.

Alejo

I have to admit that I did it on purpose to see who would complain and spin it a little. Spin is my job, after all.

Alejo

I have to admit that I did it on purpose to see who would complain and spin it a little. Spin is my job, after all.

How about this Jack:
Leftist and realist have no right to be used in the same sentence.
Leftist and realist are like night and day.
Leftist and realist is like saying military intel.
etc…

Sorry, but I just had to.
:)

Sorry, Joseph. That is a problem with sweeping generalities.

Yeah, I might’ve been a little overly sensitive, too. I’ve been dealing with a conservative enclave on this other site I post at, and they can’t talk about liberals without bringing up Michael Moore as our grand poobah and acting as if all liberals think like he does.

“They can’t talk about liberals without bringing up Michael Moore as our grand poobah and acting as if all liberals think like he does.”

You mean you don’t? I guess the brainwashing hasn’t had it’s full effect! You need to watch Farinheit-911 again, and fast!

Sorry. To quote kctim, I just had to!

Jack (M),
Do you actually get paid to do this? That’s the kind of job I want!

No pay for this, traveler. This is pure joy and sometimes a minor addiction that gets in the way of my day job.

But you are right about the desirability and maybe a good retirement position.

jack (M),
I guess I mistook your use of the word job.
I was just wondering, since I know you’re one of the editors.

Traveler

I actually don’t know who runs this blog or why. I just signed up because I like to write. Thanks to whoever is running this for giving us all a place to be. It is sort of ourdoor relief for insufficiently employed writers.

Traveler

I actually don’t know who runs this blog or why. I just signed up because I like to write. Thanks to whoever is running this for giving us all a place to be. It is sort of ourdoor relief for insufficiently employed writers.

Jack M, Cameron Barrett is the owner, founder of WatchBlog. It is a great place for debate.

If Rumsfeld knew and allow what happened with prisoners, then he should be pay the price as the law stated. That’s the way it should be work. If Rumsfeld is guilty and part of war crimes over the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse, then he should be punish. He can’t be excused from crime,just because it was a war and he is a American.

Here’s what I want to know. If I went to my superior and I said “This soldier, Soldier Smith, grabbed my son and took him into a room and beat him senseless, covered him with feces, fondled his private parts, and sicked a dog on him, and here are pictures of him doing it.” Would it really take them a month and a half to suspend this guy from duty? Is that how the military system works?

Seriously. Is it? Because I think if you have a photo of someone doing something, the person should be immediately suspended while you conduct the investigation. It’s not a matter of “innocent until proven guilty”, because you’ve got pretty strong evidence that he’s guilty right in front of you.

Julia

From Human Rights Watch:

U.S.: Congress Tries to Undermine War Crimes Court
Spending Provision Threatens Millions in Aid to ICC Countries

(New York, December 8, 2004) - The United States intensified its assault on international justice with Congress’ approval yesterday of the “Nethercutt Amendment,” Human Rights Watch said today. This provision, part of an overall spending bill, mandates withholding antiterrorism funds and other aid from countries that refuse to grant immunity for U.S. citizens before the International Criminal Court.

At the same time that the Bus administration is seeking to place the United States above international law, serious allegations of prisoner abuse by U.S. troops from Iraq to Guantanamo Bay continue to be made. Under these conditions, U.S. efforts to obtain immunity for its citizens have become even harder for its allies to accept, Human Rights Watch said. The International Criminal Court (ICC)-which can prosecute only the most serious crimes and only if a country is unwilling or unable to do so-could have no role in jurisdiction over these crimes by U.S. forces because of various limitations on its authority.

“While accounts of U.S. abuse of prisoners keep surfacing, the United States is ratcheting up pressure on states to place U.S. citizens beyond the reach of a court that can only be used as a last resort,” said Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice program of Human Rights Watch. “As revelations of abuses continue, U.S. insistence on immunity strikes a particularly raw nerve.”

The amendment to the U.S. federal spending bill threatens to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to countries that have joined the International Criminal Court but do not sign bilateral immunity agreements. These agreements require countries to guarantee that both U.S. nationals and non-U.S. nationals working for the United States will not be handed over to the ICC. This violates states’ obligations under the ICC treaty to fully cooperate with the court.

The amendment threatens aid available under the Economic Support Fund-intended to help U.S. allies promote democracy, fight terrorism and corruption, and resolve conflict. Jordan, which has helped train Iraqi police and hosted conferences on the reconstruction of Iraq, is set to lose approximately $250 million in aid. Peru is expected to lose $8 million that would have funded democratic reforms and programs to reduce coca cultivation, drug-trafficking, and terrorism. Also at risk is the Bush administration’s own Middle East Partnership Initiative, intended to promote reform in the Arab world.

“The United States is bullying smaller, weaker countries because of an ideological obsession with an illusory threat,” said Dicker. “It is putting its ill-conceived campaign ahead of other interests the U.S. government claims are its highest priorities.”

For the past two years, the Bush administration has used another law, the American Service-members’ Protection Act, to threaten countries with a suspension of military aid if they do not sign the immunity agreements. Last year, the United States suspended military assistance to more than 20 countries over this issue, including aid designed to help several Eastern European countries deploy troops to Iraq. Despite persistent pressure, the United States has failed to crack the will of many ICC states. Rather, the United States has succeeded in isolating itself, Human Rights Watch said.

“The United States has already alienated many countries in its campaign against the ICC,” said Dicker. “At a time when it is complaining about lack of support from its allies, the United States is stomping on other states even harder to get what it wants”.

The Nethercutt amendment was first introduced into the U.S. Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill in July by U.S. Representative George Nethercutt, a Republican from Washington state. The amendment includes an exemption for countries covered under another economic assistance program known as the Millennium Challenge Account, as well as the option for the president to waive the Nethercutt Amendment’s restrictions for members of NATO and major non-NATO allies. However, these waivers are not guarantees and would still leave many countries open to pressure to violate their ICC obligations, Human Rights Watch said.

The ICC can only prosecute when national courts are unwilling or unable to try genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. This year, the court began investigating crimes in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda, where mass atrocities have been committed in recent years. Based in The Hague, the court has broad international support. Currently, 97 countries have ratified the Rome Statute establishing the court, and nearly 140 have signed this treaty.

For more information on Human Rights Watch’s work on the International Criminal Court, see http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/

Am I hearing “bribery”, “extortion”, “threatening” ?
Are we talking of the first democracy in the world, the model of freedom and… JUSTICE ?

i just don’t get you conservative retards. why don’t any of you have the balls to question this athority like real americans are suppost to do.

i just don’t get you conservative retards. why don’t any of you have the balls to question this authority like real americans are suppost to do.

oops!Screwed it up the first time, see what living in a conservative red state does to your IQ after a while.