General Discussion

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)

121. The OP is not incorrect. The Security Council can refer War Crimes to the ICC regardless of whether

Fri Sep 6, 2013, 08:17 PM

Sep 2013

or not the 'country' is a member. All it would take is for the US to get on board with everyone else.

I have provided you with the information that explains this. Continuing to deny it won't make it go away.

WE are the ones blocking the use of the Rule of Law to resolve these issues.

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