quote:

over time, truth will out

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Just one problem -- the US doesn't recognize the Hague.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court

What does that have to do with anything?

It means her recommendation is inactionable.

It is certainly the case that magor figures from the West have, to date, managed to avoid finding themselves in the dock at the ICC answering war crimes charges. This is not because of any legal impediment, or because such prosecutions are "inactionable", it is due to political power.

Certain war crimes, especially crimes against humanity are actionable and can be prosecuted in any court in the world where the political will allows it. This is because the principle of universal jurisdiction was established in the Pinochet case. The full story can be read at the link below:
"Despite his release on grounds of ill-health, the unprecedented detention of Pinochet in a foreign country for crimes against humanity committed in his own country, without a warrant or request for extradition from his own country, marks a watershed in international law. Some scholars consider it one of the most important events in judicial history since the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals. Judge Garzón's case was largely founded on the principle of universal jurisdiction—that certain crimes are so egregious that they constitute crimes against humanity and can therefore be prosecuted in any court in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet%27s_arrest_and_trial

Therefore, in theory it would be possible for (say, for example) Kissinger to be prosecuted in US courts for his role in the bombing of Cambodia, unless the US Govt has given him a pardon. Even then, in theory, he would still be liable to prosecution for the same crimes in an overseas jurisdiction. While the US Govt may not recognise the ICC, that doesn't prevent the prosecution of US citizens in a third country or referral of cases involving US citizens to the ICC. In matters such as these, US legal jurisdiction stops at the US's borders.

So, the legal framework does exist in current international law. Crimes against humanity are actionable in law. If the appropriate political will exists, there doesn't appear to be any legal obstacle to such prosecutions. That is not to say that prosecuting war criminals of the stature of Kissinger will be straightforward. But the requisite provisions and framework exist in international law. What is needed is for these provisions to be enforced without fear or favour.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Of course not. Because you're not really interested in peace. You're not really interested in stopping pedophilia. You're only interested in expanding the uma - the muslim world. And that's the reason for the Blair witch hunt.

Expanding the uma? What a crock-of-shit hindsight rationalization for the needless, unjustified, immoral, lying motherfucker war waged by BushCheney and Blair on Iraq in violation of the UN Charter.

Quote me.

Quote me the UN Charter where its a violation. Once again you're wrong. Wrong on the facts and so blatantly wrong on Blair its comical.

Hence "Blair witch hunt".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Igor....... I think you are talking about Paul O`Neil.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-sought-way-to-invade-iraq/

quote:

ORIGINAL: HappyServings

quote:

To insist that the West stops intervening and imposing its will and ways on non-Western nations and peoples is to advance the causes of peace, justice and human rights and to oppose militarism and aggression. To argue against this proposition is to support warmongering and aggression.

Each and every nation has the right to choose its own way and the right to be free from outside intervention denying them that right

These two statements are completely contradictory. If you support a nation's right to absolute self-determination then you have to support its right to use its armed forces as it chooses without external pressure for bodies such as the UN.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HappyServings

If it's exclusively inward, then it's not true self-determination. It has to include the ability to act on the world stage. We live in an age of realpolitik where it's sometimes necessary to disregard morality and take actions that benefit our nation even at the expense of another. Invading a sovereign nation on shady pretenses might be unethical, but it's not grounds for war crimes. British and American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are not under any definition committing war crimes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: HappyServings

If it's exclusively inward, then it's not true self-determination. It has to include the ability to act on the world stage. We live in an age of realpolitik where it's sometimes necessary to disregard morality and take actions that benefit our nation even at the expense of another. Invading a sovereign nation on shady pretenses might be unethical, but it's not grounds for war crimes. British and American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are not under any definition committing war crimes.

Oh...might makes right. Thought we were past that.

What much of the so-called coalition forces did after the Iraqi govt. fell were almost entirely war crimes, unless one turns a deliberately blind eye to the torture, the deprivation, the private contractor killings...shall I go on ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux



Waterboarding isn't torture.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux



Waterboarding isn't torture.

So you wouldn't object to your local police waterboarding you if they felt you had some useful information you were withholding?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

According to Phydeaux:
Interventions by the West in the Middle East are NOT war
Waterboarding of suspects is NOT torture
Presumably 'collateral damage' doesn't mean civilian casualties any more either and there really were WNDs in Iraq, we just didn't find them.

Its beginning to sound as though Phydeaux is using Orwell's '1984' as a style guide for his posts. Euphemisms become reality as the cheerleaders for war and torture try to pull the wool over our eyes again.

No one is fooled

quote:


As waterboarding involves no pain, and when done correctly involves no physical or psychological trauma - its not torture.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

over time, truth will out

But not when it counts Politesub.. that is the point.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

According to Phydeaux:
Interventions by the West in the Middle East are NOT war
Waterboarding of suspects is NOT torture
Presumably 'collateral damage' doesn't mean civilian casualties any more either and there really were WNDs in Iraq, we just didn't find them.

Its beginning to sound as though Phydeaux is using Orwell's '1984' as a style guide for his posts. Euphemisms become reality as the cheerleaders for war and torture try to pull the wool over our eyes again.

No one is fooled

And your posts are complete lies, so no one that actually matters ... cares.

Torture: the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

As waterboarding involves no pain, and when done correctly involves no physical or psychological trauma - its not torture.

Despite your tortured (aka.. from the latin, to twist) arguments to the contrary. You don't just get to make up new meanings in your hatred of the west just to satisfy your desire to make accusations. Making someone uncormfortable is not torture.

As for the rest, I've never made the statements you ascribe to me. As usual, as the quintessential liberal you lie.