I would point to the Kosovo tribunal at the Hague, which just found Ramush Haradinaj innocent. He is now set to become prime minister of the new Kosovo state created by the US and NATO. Apparently, the judges basically acquitted Haradinaj, noting the murder of a few witnesses and the fact that over one third of them had to be taken into protective custody to testify against Haradinaj. They also noted that the US had exerted an inappropriate influence in pressuring the court to find Haradinaj innocent.

Comparing this to other war crimes tribunals with actors who are not "our" friends, one can see the only rationale for these tribunals. They reinforce whatever American foreign policy decisions are being taken. Haradinaj = good, therefore our intervention in Bosnia was justified.

Bearing this in mind, I think it will be a long time before there is anything good that comes out of a war crimes tribunal. As long as the UNited States is such a powerful actor, they will invariably underwrite our foreign policy decisions, rather than seek true justice.

Wars against occupation are not only just, they are legitimate under international law, so long as the goal (and end) of the war is the removal of the occupation.

"If we, as Democrats, want people to trust us, we must first trust them. This means leaving the emotional flim-flam to those on the other side who do it best."

That's hilarious. You guys must have laughed your asses off.

...in this posting page is for a russian mail order bride service. I wish I was joking.

I thought you were joking, that's all.

I mean given the behavior of Democrats for the last eight years, its absurdist humor at its best. But maybe you had to be there.

I think we can agree. But I also believe we have to be a little colder with democrats than we have been in the past. They often remind me of the pathologically unfaithful husband..."this time it will be different, honey". How many times did I hear that this past decade? And I actually was out there, pounding pavement for them in 05 and 06 so that we could 'end this war'. And the nerve, to just come back and say, ok, we promised you we were going to take a principled stand and represent your ideals. And ok, we kind of didn't do that. But, this time, its really going to be different.

Its not that I won't vote democrat, its that we look a little bit like the bewildered wife out here. At a certain point, maybe in four to eight years, we're going to have to say enough is enough.

Are you, by any chance, Hans Reiser?

I think its marvelous that Bilal Hussein has finally been let go. But I don't see it as a repudiation of Bush's habeus corpus end-run as much as Glenn does. Here's the fine print:

"The decision by a four-judge panel says Hussein's case falls under a new amnesty law and orders Iraqi courts to "cease legal proceedings."

Glenn notes this towards the end of the piece, and I think the point is that Hussein was finally able to avail himself to protection under the law, and that ironically that had to happen in a country on fire. But, it seems to me that being freed under an amnesty law, may have been a way to avoid a court proceeding where issues of guilt or innocence would come up. This seems like it would be the equivalent of pleading no contest and being let go with time served. Am I wrong?

The Bush administration can still point to the decision as upholding its policies--or at least its not an indictment of them. Because there's no proof of Bilal's innocence, the Bush admin committed the lesser crime of denying a suspect, habeus corpus, not the greater crime of imprisoning an innocent man for two years.

"So exchanging Innocent until proven guilty with Guilty until proven innocent is your idea of "upholding policies" and not "an indictment"?

Yes, obviously Kitt. That's why I read Glenn's column and post here because I believe that we should exchange "innocent until proven guilty" with "guilty until proven innocent." Obviously.

Now, if you go back and read the original posts just as carefully, you will also find the responses you seek.

Oh well, win some, lose some.

I've noted the many mentions of Nuremberg, here. But am I missing something? The US held the Nuremberg trials to try its vanquished enemy. Where is the analogous body that would bring our criminal leaders to trial? Its certainly not any of the international bodies out there, since we pretty much control them. I mentioned the Kosovo trial earlier, but I think anyone who has any hope of an international tribunal bringing an American administration fiend to justice, should check out the outcome of that particular dog and pony show.

If someday, the Comet from Deep Impact should ever hit the earth, and there are about a thousand of us left, and some of the people who've predicated the Iraq invasion (and Panama, Vietnam, etc.) we may have a pretty good chance as long as Morgan Freeman is still president.

I think the Bilal Hussein case also shows just how tenuous the IRaq government's hold on power is. I think on one level, they couldn't just declare the imprisonment of Hussein invalid and let him go with an apology; the amnesty thing would seem to me a way not to embarrass the Bush administration, by maintaining the implication that there was the possibility of wrong-doing on Hussein's part. On the other hand, the Iraqi government certainly couldn't take such a man through a full trial--even if he were found innocent--given everything he would represent to the Iraqi people, it would certainly remove a bit of legitimacy.