General Discussion

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)

13. Thank you Sabrina! K&R

Reply to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Fri Sep 6, 2013, 12:09 PM

Sep 2013

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

146 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

There Is a Process in Place for Dealing with War Crimes. [View all] sabrina 1 Sep 2013 OP

K&R Love that picture! nt. polly7 Sep 2013 #1

Yes, his BFF Pat Robertson who had invested in Taylor's Diamond Mines, was very upset over that sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #9

I agree Sabrina. polly7 Sep 2013 #12

War crime trials are victors' justice. Always have been, always will be. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #2

Had we approached Russia and China with an honest "LET'S investigate then punish".... Junkdrawer Sep 2013 #3

Putin and China's leaders are socipaths. China bankrolled the Darfur genocide. nt geek tragedy Sep 2013 #10

Compared to China, the US record is???? Junkdrawer Sep 2013 #15

Point being, no point in raising human rights with China and Russia. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #17

Point being IF we were really so certain of Assad's guilt.... Junkdrawer Sep 2013 #19

The correct analogy is Saddam in 1988. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #22

We rewarded his use of poison gas? bvar22 Sep 2013 #58

Point being once we start the process of holding our OWN war criminals and human rights abusers sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #46

I agree, but... RC Sep 2013 #76

What a ridiculous statement. Clearly you have never been a victim of a crime. I can tell with sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #5

There is no meaningful international judicial or criminal justice system. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #11

Your point being vigilante justice is more effective? whatchamacallit Sep 2013 #16

No, the point is that appeals to a mythical judicial system geek tragedy Sep 2013 #18

Well then please state your preferred alternative to international law and the security council whatchamacallit Sep 2013 #23

States acting according to the interests of their own citizens. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #26

Ha! Then you better be cool with the comeuppance the US has earned. whatchamacallit Sep 2013 #28

'comeuppance?' geek tragedy Sep 2013 #31

Yes geek whatchamacallit Sep 2013 #36

States have every right to pursue redress. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #50

You must have missed the exoneration of the Bush gang by this president who didn't exactly deny sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #83

No they don't, not really. RC Sep 2013 #77

It is not a mythical judicial system. But we have found out that it is being undermined by none sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #56

Do you really think the target of the ICC is powerful countries and leaders? nt geek tragedy Sep 2013 #64

Yes, it would be, which is why Bush withdrew the US from participating in it. Obviously he knew they sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #66

Bush withdrew from the ICC because he has contempt for the geek tragedy Sep 2013 #67

Bush withdrew because he was afraid of US Troops and of course his fellow war criminals sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #102

Agree with you, except for * being afraid of troops being held accountble for war crimes. He only Mnemosyne Sep 2013 #125

I agree that was the main reason, pre-meditated War Crimes! I know I knew it at the time and took sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #128

By comparison... bobclark86 Sep 2013 #51

How defeatist of you. And you just made my point. Why have we not seen Bush et al at the Hague? sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #20

the rest of the world is content to let war criminals gas their own people. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #30

The rest of the world wants to see evidence, as they have said. Then they want to proceed sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #49

The world is generally content with doing nothing about that which it expresses outrage. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #53

Would you concede there is a major difference bewtween international law and state and national law DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2013 #14

I believe that when a country fails to bring its War Criminals to justice then victims can take sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #33

"Why have we abandoned it?" HooptieWagon Sep 2013 #4

Rule of Law has been abandoned because it isn't sexy and cool. sibelian Sep 2013 #6

We've abandoned it because our own war criminals... polichick Sep 2013 #7

And if a member of the Security Council blocks enforcement of International Law for its own reasons? brooklynite Sep 2013 #8

Thank you Sabrina! K&R whatchamacallit Sep 2013 #13

Waging Law enforcement zipplewrath Sep 2013 #21

Nice to see you've figured out what a convicted war criminal is...nt SidDithers Sep 2013 #24

Oh my god--I remember that thread---how many times it had to be explained that Charles Taylor msanthrope Sep 2013 #47

Lol! sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #87

... Liberal_Dog Sep 2013 #48

Well at least one has been convicted. There are a whole lot more who need to be convicted. sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #55

Once Bush&Co got away scott free felix_numinous Sep 2013 #25

Exactly, international justice organizations have been so undermined by those in power polly7 Sep 2013 #32

And we lost our Moral Authority in the process. Which is why now we have so little support for sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #39

DURec leftstreet Sep 2013 #27

"The first one since WWII"... in 2012. Barack_America Sep 2013 #29

My point is that we have abandoned the Rule of Law. In fact it's worse than sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #38

the international justus system noiretextatique Sep 2013 #34

The 1% DON'T WANT THE RULE OF LAW ENFORCED Demeter Sep 2013 #35

Bush removed us from the ICC in anticipation of the War Crimes he knew they were about to commit. sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #40

+1 Scuba Sep 2013 #44

Got a link? It is my understanding we were never signatories to the ICC. SunSeeker Sep 2013 #52

We were, under Clinton. sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #129

We were signatories to the Rome treaty, but never subject to the ICC. SunSeeker Sep 2013 #130

If we followed the rule of law, a lot of politicians, CEOs, presidents, and generals NuclearDem Sep 2013 #37

k&r avaistheone1 Sep 2013 #41

The world needs more JUSTICE not war. felix_numinous Sep 2013 #42

K&R. Just say YES to The Rule of Law! Coyotl Sep 2013 #43

Unconditional amnesty? nt Xipe Totec Sep 2013 #45

We've abandoned rule of law for the same reasons Zimmerman did. Maedhros Sep 2013 #54

because we are hypocrites Precisely Sep 2013 #57

Syria is not a party to the ICC. Russia & China are blocking any UN action. SunSeeker Sep 2013 #59

We are not a party to the ICC either. Bush removed us from it in anticipation of the War Crimes, sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #61

You said there was a "process in place." What is it for Syria? nt SunSeeker Sep 2013 #68

Right now, there are allegations of war crimes against the Syrian Government AND there are sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #75

So the process is the UN Security Council? No, Russia and China would veto any actions. SunSeeker Sep 2013 #78

Russia has stated that if it sees credible evidence of crimes, they would support action being sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #80

So if the Russians agree that we have evidence, we should bomb? SunSeeker Sep 2013 #86

No we should NOT bomb. Is that part of International Law even when a War Criminal has been sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #88

The UN Security Council does not prosecute war criminals. SunSeeker Sep 2013 #89

Nor did I say the Security Council prosecutes war criminals. sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #90

What is that process? nt SunSeeker Sep 2013 #91

Are you really unaware of the process of International Law that the US signed on to? sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #92

I was unaware of the process, and you've made no attempt to explain it muriel_volestrangler Sep 2013 #95

It's really not difficult to find if you have access to a search engine. Unless you don't really sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #100

The ICC is intended to supersede such temporary BlueMTexpat Sep 2013 #135

However, Clinton didn't try to get the agreement ratified, and neither has Obama muriel_volestrangler Sep 2013 #136

The US is not a party to the ICC. Taylor was convicted in the Special Court for Sierra Leone. SunSeeker Sep 2013 #96

I have provided you with a link to the process. See my last comment to you. sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #98

That link says the process is the ICC, which Syria is not a party to. SunSeeker Sep 2013 #105

Who said that not being a party to the ICC prevents prosecution for War Crimes? Can you provide me sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #107

The ICC said. SunSeeker Sep 2013 #110

From my link above: sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #111

Did you even read the ICC link? SunSeeker Sep 2013 #113

You are wasting my time. The US is a signatory to all International Laws. They have consistently sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #116

From the ICC's own website: delta17 Sep 2013 #117

You keep ignoring the fact that the ICC can't prosecute Syria as a nonparty to the ICC. SunSeeker Sep 2013 #118

You keep ignoring the fact that when the International Community unites against a proven war sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #119

No, I'm not. The UN Security Council is vetoing any action against Assad. SunSeeker Sep 2013 #120

Agree....and it was surprising to see POB in his Presser today KoKo Sep 2013 #60

'The US is who the world looks to when there is a situation that involves a country that could do sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #65

His Press Inteview today from Russia was an incredible watch... Bizarre... KoKo Sep 2013 #79

Wow, reading from the same script Bush read from. Only now we have the Bush disaster sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #81

The US and its corporate leaders do not respect laws when they are contrary to their interests. gtar100 Sep 2013 #62

Excellent post. K&R. nt. NCTraveler Sep 2013 #63

A perfect post. russspeakeasy Sep 2013 #69

K&R nt stevenleser Sep 2013 #70

HUGE K & R !!! WillyT Sep 2013 #71

Well you pissed off the war criminal apologists, so big K&R from me! Rex Sep 2013 #72

He was the first war criminal head of state in nearly seventy years to be successfully prosecuted. DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2013 #73

Yes and Pol Pot died of old age too. Rex Sep 2013 #74

It appears the ICC is only capable of prosecuting vanquished African despots...and only some. SunSeeker Sep 2013 #82

Here maybe this will help. The US is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions no? sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #93

So first, we have to wait for Assad to lose the civil war muriel_volestrangler Sep 2013 #97

Where does it say that? Are you familiar with the Geneva Conventions? sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #99

I didn't ask a question. To answer yours, yes, you do, if the suspect is in a different country muriel_volestrangler Sep 2013 #101

So we should not indict and charge someone because of their position? sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #106

Are you calling for him to be indicted now in an American court? (nt) muriel_volestrangler Sep 2013 #108

As your link points out, violations are tried in the ICC. SunSeeker Sep 2013 #103

So did Pinochet, with our help. He WAS indicted in his own country and charged with multiple war sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #85

'Head of state'. Not the first war criminal. sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #94

Well, that was part of the reason we elected Democrats, so they would begin the process of sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #112

call me when they're frog marching cheney/bu$h/rumsfeld. no rule of law applied there. spanone Sep 2013 #84

Errrr..... all that "rule of law" stuff followed military action to remove him from power tabasco Sep 2013 #104

Guess who is not a signatory to the ICC malaise Sep 2013 #109

Well, Syria for one. SunSeeker Sep 2013 #115

The OP is not incorrect. The Security Council can refer War Crimes to the ICC regardless of whether sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #121

Bullshit. Russia and China are vetoing any action against Assad. SunSeeker Sep 2013 #122

Good for them, they are asking for evidence. And they are not the only ones. sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #123

Those sanctions were for him slaughtering his own people with artillary. SunSeeker Sep 2013 #124

No, I am not the only one, nice try though. A majority of the people on the planet want to see sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #127

I'm not in favor of war. Neither is Obama. Nor am I an isolationist. SunSeeker Sep 2013 #131

This notion that if the truth comes from someone or someplace you don't like that has been surfacing sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #132

There was no "truth" in the freeper post you rec'd. We are not an isolationist country. SunSeeker Sep 2013 #137

The President's job is not America? We elected him to stop the money flowing to Imperial wars sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #138

His job protecting America's interests involves looking at the whole world. SunSeeker Sep 2013 #139

Well, you must not trust the President's own words on this. He has admitted that there is no way sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #140

Obama did not make that "admission." Stop believing RW posts. SunSeeker Sep 2013 #142

Uh, yes, he did make that admission. sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #143

Uh no, not in that link. Just the opposite. SunSeeker Sep 2013 #146

Bush and Cheney killed that idea ...good for them too or they'd be in prison. L0oniX Sep 2013 #114

Well said sabrina1. liberal_at_heart Sep 2013 #126

K&R woo me with science Sep 2013 #133

The Rule of Law just doesn't enrich BlueMTexpat Sep 2013 #134

How do you propose we go about arresting Assad and making him stand trial? Hippo_Tron Sep 2013 #141

We aren't at that stage yet, are we? First it would have to be proven that he is responsible. sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #145

du rec. xchrom Sep 2013 #144