General Discussion

treestar

(82,383 posts)

92. Does the ICJ have jurisdiction?

Reply to KingCharlemagne (Reply #79)

Thu Dec 11, 2014, 01:49 PM

Dec 2014

that alone could involve years of legal briefs. Obama can't confer it single handedly.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

96 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The biggest reason why President Bush will not be prosecuted for torture [View all] Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 OP

Then he shouldn't be deploying drones to kill people. Scuba Dec 2014 #1

It's a little too late for that, isn't it? Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #3

uh, no..he could stop doing it RIGHT NOW! choie Dec 2014 #4

So, he would be immune from prosecution if he stopped it before his term was over? Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #5

So in other words Obama choie Dec 2014 #6

Presidents don't always have the luxury of being 'moral leaders.' Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #8

And why doesn't he have. choie Dec 2014 #13

It's not entirely clear what he is doing is illegal Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #35

Exactly. It is entirely clear that what Bush and his cohort did was illegal under both KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #58

Luxury? GeorgeGist Dec 2014 #32

This is the reality you and I live in Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #36

would you say the same thing if choie Dec 2014 #45

of course not Scootaloo Dec 2014 #62

My point exactly Scootaloo! choie Dec 2014 #90

I t shouldn't be about avoiding prosecution. It should be about not killing people! MoonRiver Dec 2014 #87

Another good reason to prosecute. JEB Dec 2014 #2

So, you believe that President Obama would want to be prosecuted? Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #37

I expect my government to obey all laws. JEB Dec 2014 #59

Under what 'law' would or could President Obama be prosecuted? I'm not saying you're wrong, but KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #61

Obama had an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, killed by a drone attack. Calista241 Dec 2014 #85

More problematic along that same spectrum would be the case of al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son who, KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #91

How about a prosecution in the World Court? Vinca Dec 2014 #7

It has no jurisdiction as the US is not a participant Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #9

If a person from a participating country was tortured by the U.S. could it be tried there? Vinca Dec 2014 #29

No, that's not how it works Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #33

You are confusing and conflating the International Court of Justice (aka "World Court") with KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #69

bullshit edhopper Dec 2014 #10

There was no effort to criminally prosecute President Clinton over any of Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #11

A special prosecutor edhopper Dec 2014 #12

There are some who argue that the drone strikes are illegal Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #39

Some might edhopper Dec 2014 #46

Oh, FFS, if drone strikes are 'illegal,' what is the statute that makes them so? (Their KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #71

I guess he forgot. Kingofalldems Dec 2014 #27

Like the Dems always do edhopper Dec 2014 #28

There was no effort to criminally prosecute President Clinton over any of the things Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #40

Of course impeachment is nothing. Kingofalldems Dec 2014 #49

Your words, not mine. It had nothing to do with his duties as President Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #50

Impeachment is not a criminal prosecution Scootaloo Dec 2014 #54

It is the only way edhopper Dec 2014 #57

I don't think OP is talking about sitting presidents. Scootaloo Dec 2014 #60

True edhopper Dec 2014 #67

Who said it was? On the other hand it's Kingofalldems Dec 2014 #65

Well, good thing Pelosi took it "off the table" back in 2006, then Scootaloo Dec 2014 #68

As I recall the OP applauded this move by her. Kingofalldems Dec 2014 #70

Bravo! Clinton might arguably have faced criminal liability after removal from office (heavy KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #72

While true, the workaround is for the President to tell the World Court if they indict he will stevenleser Dec 2014 #14

Dream on. OldEurope Dec 2014 #15

Drone use is not a crime. I dont know why that myth persists. The only potential issue with Drones stevenleser Dec 2014 #16

So you don't consider it a crime to kill someone OldEurope Dec 2014 #19

I dont write international law and neither do you. International law says it is not a crime stevenleser Dec 2014 #20

You do not know anything about my knowledge of law. OldEurope Dec 2014 #25

What statutes under international law would 'drone use' violate? I'm not saying you're wrong, mind KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #74

I said you don't write it. I didn't comment on your knowledge. Your response to me was about my stevenleser Dec 2014 #77

There may also be an abstract constitutional issue at stake, in that use of drones in theaters KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #73

Um edhopper Dec 2014 #18

Where did I suggest ... OldEurope Dec 2014 #22

Oh edhopper Dec 2014 #24

Focusing on Bush too, is only the tip of the iceberg treestar Dec 2014 #17

Pedantic note: I do take issue with your use of the term 're-elected,' since KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #76

Pedantic not taken treestar Dec 2014 #93

Hey Freddie - how's your bud Arne Duncan doing? tenderfoot Dec 2014 #21

Mr. Duncan is doing well Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #41

You must be proud of the job he's doing helping to destroy public education tenderfoot Dec 2014 #43

I am proud of the job that he is doing and it would appear that so is the President Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #56

I'm okay with that. LeftyMom Dec 2014 #23

That is exactly why he should prosecuted on point Dec 2014 #26

The biggest reason is that the average American doesn't care. Maedhros Dec 2014 #30

I'm perfectly OK with Obama being prosecuted for murdering civilians with drones. [n/t] Maedhros Dec 2014 #31

What a pitiful excuse for being immoral. 99Forever Dec 2014 #34

The biggest reason is that we are a violent and ignorant nation. How's that for bluntness? WinkyDink Dec 2014 #38

Fear of retribution may indeed be one reason LondonReign2 Dec 2014 #42

Incorrect. Orsino Dec 2014 #44

Killing and torture. They're just doing their job, and we can't stop them? Zorra Dec 2014 #47

Complete nonsense. Under what criminal statute could he be prosecuted in the US for using drones? Vattel Dec 2014 #48

18 U.S.C �1111. Murder Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #53

Nope. Vattel Dec 2014 #88

Freddie, I don't want W prosecuted. . . DinahMoeHum Dec 2014 #51

Why doesn't the rest of the world just prosecute them? VanillaRhapsody Dec 2014 #52

+1 treestar Dec 2014 #66

Your argument ignores U.S. obligations under the U.N. Convention KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #55

But there is a problem with that. Savannahmann Dec 2014 #75

Your unclear pronoun references ("that") in this case are KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #78

I thought this morning as Scarborough was complaining about the drones Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #63

IMO the biggest reason is that it is not so easy as it looks treestar Dec 2014 #64

Obama could state publicly that he will defer to a decision by the KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #79

Does the ICJ have jurisdiction? treestar Dec 2014 #92

As members of the U.N. and holding a seat on the U.N. Security Council, I'm KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #94

It's immoral to prosecute the mentally deficient. n/t librechik Dec 2014 #80

Joking aside, I read somewhere that Lawrence Walsh declined to KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #82

I know--he just pretends to be dumb to get out of trouble librechik Dec 2014 #84

Really awesome thread. Sincere compliments! - nt KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #81

Are we positive beyond doubt ZERO torture has happened post 1/20/2009? cherokeeprogressive Dec 2014 #83

I'm no big defender of President Obama's seeming diffidence towards the KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #86

criminal prosecution under federal law would not require the President treestar Dec 2014 #95

The same reason politicians don't impeach (except maybe the president) rock Dec 2014 #89

Bush and Cheney almost certainly know where a lot of bodies are buried. Calista241 Dec 2014 #96