Bush may be next up for International Criminal Court

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Craig234
Objectives of the ICC:

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted on 17 July 1998 at a United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court. The Statute establishes an international criminal court to try individuals for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole and seeks to establish a fair and just international criminal justice system with competent and impartial judges and an independent prosecutor. Unlike an ad hoc tribunal, the Court is a permanent institution, which ensures that the international community can make immediate use of its services in the event of atrocities occurring, and also acts as a deterrent to those who would perpetrate such crimes.

Link

Where does the list of objectives refer to being limited to failed states?

Rather, it refers to what I mentioned - a "fair and just" system. It even mentions the same deterrent value I'd mentioned.

You make an accusation of 'emtional argument', but it's nonsense. That's like saying obejection to the Holocause is just 'emotional', since it partly is.

I called your argument emotional since of your last post was just that, an emotional appeal based on "millions of deaths".

Repeating the same nonsense doesn't make it smell better.

You're claimiing that in discussing war crimes, any discussion of an actual situation is invalid if it elicits any emotions? What nonsense.

It's emotional is it elicits emotions *and lacks any substance*. Calling something an emotional argument is proper when and only when the emotion is replacing substance.

Sorry, but there are events involving the killing of millions that are not just 'emotional'.

So lest the discussion get derailed, you need to put that little canard bag where it came from - or we can continue this circular exchange on it and derail the thread.

It doesn't state any objective of failed states, but that is what it is suppose to be used for. Would you support the ICC arresting George Bush and President Obama for violating the Geneva conventions with regards to Guantanamo Bay as well as any soldiers and officers who followed order to commit these atrocities to be tried by an International court Craig? Would you give them that jurisdiction over American citizens?

Technically, no, because we didn't ratify it, so they weren't subject to it.

But I'd support ratifying it in a manner that did allow for accountability; they'd have a deterrent against those policies, and if they did them, yes, arrest them.

I'm not exactly sure what the protections would look like; it might involve the ability upon the same basis that we ratify a treaty, for us to be able to withdraw.

That way, if the ICC abused its power, we could withdraw - but there's be a political price, because to evade a proper prosection, people would have to defend leaving the treaty.

Clearly, the pendulum is tilted far to one side now, away from any accountability.

We have accountability within American Law. The fact that Obama has chosen not to persue this avenue or prosecution does not take away from the fact it is available. Bush broke some very real and very serious American laws, I think someone counted at least 26 or 25.

We do not have accountability within American Law, if American law is not enforced for political reasons. You don't seem to understand what accountability means.

The ICC allows for the host state to get priority in enfircing its own laws, and only steps in if they're not enforced for some reason. So if you're right, the ICC won't get involved.

Another problem in regards to the ICC is that at some point for American protection a event might need to occur that would violate International law. At this point we get back to the idea of the "good" lawbreaker, someone who might have to break a law for the overall good, but the ICC as an international body could still prosecute such a person for whatever the crime was that might have saved American lives.

Please tell me the situationin which the US would 'have to' protect itself with the policies of mass rape, forced impregnation, genocide, and the other crimes the ICC prosecutes.

There is no excuse for such crimes, and you are merely inventing a phony argument for something that doesn't exist.

These are only some of the problems of attempting to give an outside body power over a successful state. There is nothing good that can come from giving the ICC jurisdiction over the US and way too many potential drawbacks to even consider it. The laws are already in place to prosecute Bush, petition Obama or the AG to do it.

It took 60 countries to agree to the ICC for it to be created. That happened. A lot of countries disagree with your concerns, and there hasn't been any such abuse.

The most 'successful states' alongside the US, in the EU, strongly favor the ICC and placed themselves under its jurisdiction, with no problems. That argument is clearly contradicted.

Interesting list of crimes you included yet you would be willing to have Bush prosecuted for far less.


Your first point is void since the ICC assumes the authority to "second guess" a sovereign states decision. So if the US tried a US citizen for a crime committed on US soil and found him not guilty, the ICC would have the right to retry such individual. Refer to the document here

There is also the concern of the Supreme court stating that Americans committing crimes on American soil can only be tried by the Judicial Brance (as per Article 3 of the constitution).Refer to this article here


The ICC also has unchecked prosecutors who can initiate an investigation on anyone with only the approval of two judges.


Also we have unaccountable judges, it is politically motivated and used, allows hearsay evidence, it also is by stance against prosecuting acts of terrorism.

As well, ontop of all this, crimes can be added to the Rome statue at the whim of the ICC and these crimed are automatically adopted by anyone who has ratified it.


To join the ICC is to go against in essence Article 3 of the constitution, not to mention disregarding any of the founding fathers ideas of not not getting involved in great political organizations, not to mention putting at risk every American citizen to the whim of two judges and a prosecutor. For what? To prosecute people here because our politicians don't?

You stated that we need the ICC because of the reluctance to prosecute due to political motivations, the ICC involves countries around the world who could very easily prosecute any american citizen when only having to get the approval of two judges and a prosecutor who might never have set foot in America ever.


So Craig, is still worth it?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Interesting list of crimes you included yet you would be willing to have Bush prosecuted for far less.


Your first point is void since the ICC assumes the authority to "second guess" a sovereign states decision. So if the US tried a US citizen for a crime committed on US soil and found him not guilty, the ICC would have the right to retry such individual. Refer to the document here

There is also the concern of the Supreme court stating that Americans committing crimes on American soil can only be tried by the Judicial Brance (as per Article 3 of the constitution).Refer to this article here


The ICC also has unchecked prosecutors who can initiate an investigation on anyone with only the approval of two judges.


Also we have unaccountable judges, it is politically motivated and used, allows hearsay evidence, it also is by stance against prosecuting acts of terrorism.

As well, ontop of all this, crimes can be added to the Rome statue at the whim of the ICC and these crimed are automatically adopted by anyone who has ratified it.


To join the ICC is to go against in essence Article 3 of the constitution, not to mention disregarding any of the founding fathers ideas of not not getting involved in great political organizations, not to mention putting at risk every American citizen to the whim of two judges and a prosecutor. For what? To prosecute people here because our politicians don't?

You stated that we need the ICC because of the reluctance to prosecute due to political motivations, the ICC involves countries around the world who could very easily prosecute any american citizen when only having to get the approval of two judges and a prosecutor who might never have set foot in America ever.


So Craig, is still worth it?

There's no discussing with political paranoia and hysteria.

for the sake of argument, let's say we agreed to the ICC. You could then argue that if the international prison guards decided to rape and torture the imprsioned George Bush on their own initiative against the ICC rules, there's nothing to stop them from doing so and so by agreeing to the ICC I'm condoning the rape and torture of our former presidents. That's the sort of logic you're using with your 'sure the rules say this, but they'd actually do that' sort of argument.

As for prosecuting Bush for 'far less', the crimes of toture and aggression are on the table for investigation, but no one has said any specific charges fit on behalf of the ICC.

But I'll take your (lack of an) answer as not being able to support your previous claim about the US 'having to do things the ICC would later prosecute it for.'

It's perverse for you to try to claim that the founding fathers' distaste for foreign entanglements would preclude the ICC - if the founding fathers were followed on that issue, the US wouldn't be doing the things around the world that it's doing in the first place where the crimes occur that would be affected by the ICC. Try following what they say, not just prostituting them for your attempt to say they're on your side on this.

You hype the paranoia again in your closing paragraph. You have proven that the EU wants its citizens and leaders to be the victims of wildly corrupt ICC prosecutorial abuse.

Sorry, you are not offering anything to discuss at this point, just the wild-eyed 'the sky will fall', and you are not answering the points made to you at all for the most part.

As for the constitutional issue, I'll defer comment until I've looked into it and feel there's a point in going into it. I have no comment now.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RichardE

Interesting list of crimes you included yet you would be willing to have Bush prosecuted for far less.


Your first point is void since the ICC assumes the authority to "second guess" a sovereign states decision. So if the US tried a US citizen for a crime committed on US soil and found him not guilty, the ICC would have the right to retry such individual. Refer to the document here

There is also the concern of the Supreme court stating that Americans committing crimes on American soil can only be tried by the Judicial Brance (as per Article 3 of the constitution).Refer to this article here


The ICC also has unchecked prosecutors who can initiate an investigation on anyone with only the approval of two judges.


Also we have unaccountable judges, it is politically motivated and used, allows hearsay evidence, it also is by stance against prosecuting acts of terrorism.

As well, ontop of all this, crimes can be added to the Rome statue at the whim of the ICC and these crimed are automatically adopted by anyone who has ratified it.


To join the ICC is to go against in essence Article 3 of the constitution, not to mention disregarding any of the founding fathers ideas of not not getting involved in great political organizations, not to mention putting at risk every American citizen to the whim of two judges and a prosecutor. For what? To prosecute people here because our politicians don't?

You stated that we need the ICC because of the reluctance to prosecute due to political motivations, the ICC involves countries around the world who could very easily prosecute any american citizen when only having to get the approval of two judges and a prosecutor who might never have set foot in America ever.


So Craig, is still worth it?

There's no discussing with political paranoia and hysteria.

for the sake of argument, let's say we agreed to the ICC. You could then argue that if the international prison guards decided to rape and torture the imprsioned George Bush on their own initiative against the ICC rules, there's nothing to stop them from doing so and so by agreeing to the ICC I'm condoning the rape and torture of our former presidents. That's the sort of logic you're using with your 'sure the rules say this, but they'd actually do that' sort of argument.

As for prosecuting Bush for 'far less', the crimes of toture and aggression are on the table for investigation, but no one has said any specific charges fit on behalf of the ICC.

But I'll take your (lack of an) answer as not being able to support your previous claim about the US 'having to do things the ICC would later prosecute it for.'

It's perverse for you to try to claim that the founding fathers' distaste for foreign entanglements would preclude the ICC - if the founding fathers were followed on that issue, the US wouldn't be doing the things around the world that it's doing in the first place where the crimes occur that would be affected by the ICC. Try following what they say, not just prostituting them for your attempt to say they're on your side on this.

You hype the paranoia again in your closing paragraph. You have proven that the EU wants its citizens and leaders to be the victims of wildly corrupt ICC prosecutorial abuse.

Sorry, you are not offering anything to discuss at this point, just the wild-eyed 'the sky will fall', and you are not answering the points made to you at all for the most part.

As for the constitutional issue, I'll defer comment until I've looked into it and feel there's a point in going into it. I have no comment now.

Not a sky will fall just stating the potential for abuse, something you feel is a good enough argument when having to do with our other topics. Does potential for abuse count as sky is falling when used against your arguments?

As I stated, the ICC assumes the authority to overide decisions made by the States. I am almost offended by your simplicity in a counter argument.

Since I assume maybe you are tired, allow me to state the difference. The guards would be committing a crime that is not sanctioned by anyone. The ICC though would be committing investigations that are sanctioned by the ratification of it.

For someone who attacked me for "putting my faith in the government" you seem to have no problem doing it for the UN. A much bigger government than the American government. I wonder why that is.

I await your reasoning more than likely to ignore article 3 though, I think that will be good.



As far as your "no example" The simple act of bombing a military installation that resulted in killing civilians is punishable as "war crimes". There is no such thing as collateral damage with the ICC.

 

[newnameman]

Would President Bush be covered under the American Service-Members' Protection Act? I think so.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Who's going to enforce a warrant for a former POTUS on our soil?

I'll volunteer to help. :thumbsup:

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their entire administration are traitors, murderers, war criminals and embarrassments to our nation. :thumbsdown: :|

Yes, I can prove it. Don't ask unless you really need one of my "macros" with names, dates, events and applicable law. Better yet, spare the majority who already know the facts by doing your own homework and searching for them in my previous posts.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Who's going to enforce a warrant for a former POTUS on our soil?

I'll volunteer to help. :thumbsup:

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their entire administration are traitors, murderers, war criminals and embarrassments to our nation. :thumbsdown: :|

Yes, I can prove it. Don't ask unless you really need one of my "macros" with names, dates, events and applicable law. Better yet, spare the majority who already know the facts by doing your own homework and searching for them in my previous posts.

You should email BHO, since apparently he isn't aware of this "proof".

 

[Robor]

Can he pull executive privilege with them?

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: newnameman
Would President Bush be covered under the American Service-Members' Protection Act? I think so.

Elected officials, so sure looks like it.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Genx87
Laughable

Yes, because he shouldn't have to answer for blatantly obfuscated truths, lies, half-truths, and propaganda that hoodwinked the country (and Congress) into supporting a war of aggression.

Answer to who? An international charade? If there are any crimes committed by Bush and his administration. Go ahead, put them on trial in a United States court.

What is that? Lack of proof? Well then I guess we should go down the path of least resistence and find a court that will satisfy our lust for idelogically driven revenge. I bet if we go low enough Judge Judy will pass a verdict for us based on little evidence. Though I suspect she be harder to convince than the ICC.

 

[StormRider]

I want to issue a warrant against the ICC for crimes against humanity. By issuing a warrant against the president of Sudan, knowing full well they can never enforce it and thus the only thing this warrant would result in is the expulsion of humanitarian aid groups from Sudan, they have indirectly caused the deaths of millions of innocents.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: JD50

You should email BHO, since apparently he isn't aware of this "proof".

I did, and he is. :thumbsup:

You're late, but since you had such a good idea, it's your turn to do the same. :light:

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: JD50

You should email BHO, since apparently he isn't aware of this "proof".

I did, and he is. :thumbsup:

You're late, but since you had such a good idea, it's your turn to do the same. :light:

Cool, so when's the trial?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: JD50

You should email BHO, since apparently he isn't aware of this "proof".

I did, and he is. :thumbsup:

You're late, but since you had such a good idea, it's your turn to do the same. :light:

Even worse, apparently he must think he can't prove it, or doesn't have the stones to try. :laugh:

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: JD50

You should email BHO, since apparently he isn't aware of this "proof".

I did, and he is. :thumbsup:

You're late, but since you had such a good idea, it's your turn to do the same. :light:

Did you really email BHO? What kind of reply did you get?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: StormRider

Did you really email BHO? What kind of reply did you get?

Yes, I really e-mailed President Obama through the contact link at whitehouse.gov. I won't know if anyone replies until it happens, but I've said my piece. I wrote a more formal, less bombastic version of what I've posted in my forum formatted "macros." Obama is a skilled legal mind with a staff of more attorneys so I didn't include all the links and citations. I wrote:

Dear President Obama,

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!!! Allow and facilitate investigation and prosecution of crimes committed by George W. Bush and his criminal administration by your Department of Justice for crimes committed in the U.S. and by appropriate International agencies, including:

MURDER:

Under Federal and most state statutes, one definition of murder is committing an act in callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others that, in fact, causes the death of another. One foreseeable consequence of war is death... in fact, many deaths. As of 3/7/09 5:04 pm EDT, 4,256 American troops have died in their war of LIES in Iraq.

At what point does it shock the conscience sufficiently to cross the threshold from being 4,256 cases of mere negligent homicide, which is another criminal offense?

TREASON:

Recently released memos from the DOJ are evidence of blatant violations of rights guaranteed to every American citizen under our once honored Constitution are a betrayal of their oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

LYING TO CONGRESS

Lying to Congress is a felony even if it is not done under oath. The list of public lies the Bush administration fed to Congress to convince them to authorize the war in Iraq is continuous and endless.

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

The Bush administration continually withheld evidence from Congress regarding their involvement with anything and everything from Alberto Gonzales' communications to their involvement with outing covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame, to their direct involvement with the CIA's use of torture and the subsequent destruction of the tapes showing them in the act of committing that torture.

WAR CRIMES

George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Alberto Gonzales and others authorized and encouraged American intelligence agencies to commit gross violations of human rights, including torture, in violation of international laws and obligations under the Geneva Conventions, which Alberto Gonzales derided as "quaint."

Not holding the criminals of the Bush administration accountable for their crimes would fly in the face of the words inscribed above the west portico of the U.S. Supreme Court, "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW." If we do not reject their crimes and prosecute the criminals, we become participants in their crimes, and we betray our Constitution, our laws and the image we hold for ourselves and project to the world of the United States of America so many have fought and died to defend.

Please do not allow such a travesty to happen.

Sincerely,

Harvey Rubens

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: StormRider
I want to issue a warrant against the ICC for crimes against humanity. By issuing a warrant against the president of Sudan, knowing full well they can never enforce it and thus the only thing this warrant would result in is the expulsion of humanitarian aid groups from Sudan, they have indirectly caused the deaths of millions of innocents.

What a terrible position - let the criminals have the power to prevent the truth being told, by threatening to do even more wrong.

You fight evil by not letting it have that power, not by caving in and happily rewarding them with hiding the truth of what they've done. That's surrender.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: StormRider

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: JD50

You should email BHO, since apparently he isn't aware of this "proof".

I did, and he is. :thumbsup:

You're late, but since you had such a good idea, it's your turn to do the same. :light:

Did you really email BHO? What kind of reply did you get?

Probably forwarded to the NSA and he is now on a list lol.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: StormRider

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: JD50

You should email BHO, since apparently he isn't aware of this "proof".

I did, and he is. :thumbsup:

You're late, but since you had such a good idea, it's your turn to do the same. :light:

Did you really email BHO? What kind of reply did you get?

Probably forwarded to the NSA and he is now on a list lol.

To quote your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief... BRING IT ON! :thumbsup:

 

[OCGuy]

I dont think we recognize the ICC. We wouldnt send our soldiers there, why would we send our presidents?

Keep dreaming lefties.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: StormRider

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: JD50

You should email BHO, since apparently he isn't aware of this "proof".

I did, and he is. :thumbsup:

You're late, but since you had such a good idea, it's your turn to do the same. :light:

Did you really email BHO? What kind of reply did you get?

Probably forwarded to the NSA and he is now on a list lol.

To quote your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief... BRING IT ON! :thumbsup:

10 years from now, Harvey will still be saying the same thing.. 80 years from now, Bush will be dead.. but Harvey will still be saying: "BRING IT ON!"... Obviously, when Harvey does yell this out, he will be in a retirement home and he will be shaking his cane at the image of bush on the History Channel.. But old habits, die hard. Image Harvey yelling: "BRING IT ON!" "Nurse!! wheres my dentures!!! Nurse I think I soiled myself" Hehehehe...

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: StormRider

Did you really email BHO? What kind of reply did you get?

Yes, I really e-mailed President Obama through the contact link at whitehouse.gov. I won't know if anyone replies until it happens, but I've said my piece. I wrote a more formal, less bombastic version of what I've posted in my forum formatted "macros." Obama is a skilled legal mind with a staff of more attorneys so I didn't include all the links and citations. I wrote:

Dear President Obama,

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!!! Allow and facilitate investigation and prosecution of crimes committed by George W. Bush and his criminal administration by your Department of Justice for crimes committed in the U.S. and by appropriate International agencies, including:

MURDER:

Under Federal and most state statutes, one definition of murder is committing an act in callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others that, in fact, causes the death of another. One foreseeable consequence of war is death... in fact, many deaths. As of 3/7/09 5:04 pm EDT, 4,256 American troops have died in their war of LIES in Iraq.

At what point does it shock the conscience sufficiently to cross the threshold from being 4,256 cases of mere negligent homicide, which is another criminal offense?

TREASON:

Recently released memos from the DOJ are evidence of blatant violations of rights guaranteed to every American citizen under our once honored Constitution are a betrayal of their oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

LYING TO CONGRESS

Lying to Congress is a felony even if it is not done under oath. The list of public lies the Bush administration fed to Congress to convince them to authorize the war in Iraq is continuous and endless.

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

The Bush administration continually withheld evidence from Congress regarding their involvement with anything and everything from Alberto Gonzales' communications to their involvement with outing covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame, to their direct involvement with the CIA's use of torture and the subsequent destruction of the tapes showing them in the act of committing that torture.

WAR CRIMES

George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Alberto Gonzales and others authorized and encouraged American intelligence agencies to commit gross violations of human rights, including torture, in violation of international laws and obligations under the Geneva Conventions, which Alberto Gonzales derided as "quaint."

Not holding the criminals of the Bush administration accountable for their crimes would fly in the face of the words inscribed above the west portico of the U.S. Supreme Court, "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW." If we do not reject their crimes and prosecute the criminals, we become participants in their crimes, and we betray our Constitution, our laws and the image we hold for ourselves and project to the world of the United States of America of so many have fought and died to defend.

Please do not allow such a travesty to happen.

Sincerely,

Harvey Rubens

Hehe... Harvey I think you just got on a list. :laugh:

Edit: Doh, Genx87 beat me to it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Robor
Hehe... Harvey I think you just got on a list. :laugh:

Edit: Doh, Genx87 beat me to it.

Guess who doesn't get to keep the lists anymore?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Robor
Hehe... Harvey I think you just got on a list. :laugh:

Edit: Doh, Genx87 beat me to it.

Guess who doesn't get to keep the lists anymore?

People who were born yesterday or people who are naive?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Robor

Hehe... Harvey I think you just got on a list. :laugh:

Edit: Doh, Genx87 beat me to it.

Guess who doesn't get to keep the lists anymore?

People who were born yesterday or people who are naive?

Genx87 -- Are you among the naive or those who were born yesterday? :laugh:

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
I dont think we recognize the ICC. We wouldnt send our soldiers there, why would we send our presidents?

Keep dreaming lefties.

Who's talking of sending him to the ICC? I don't see it happening nor do I want to. I do, however, want him to answer to questions raised in this country and tell us the truth about the goings on during his presidency.