Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
At least the screen names used to be somewhat witty. You're just mailing it in now.
It hurts me when you don't even try.
Glenn, wouldn't a world court be investigating war crimes as we speak? You make it sound like only America can try its own. Really? Perhaps you could investigate what foreign countries are seriously pursuing the many and varied crimes the Bush Administration has committed around the world. We owe the Iraqi citizens and nation at least that much.
must go!
Unless they can demonstrate a clear and convincing reason why the United States Congress must get involved in this situation with a resolution supporting either side, they are merely enabling the warmongers.
In the meantime, where is President Elect Obama? It's now clear that his ducking the issue by proclaming that "America has only one President at a time" has been made not relevant.
If Obama truly believes that American foreign policy is the purvue of the sitting President only, why isn't he convincing Pelosi and Reid to table any motion regarding American support of Israel's activities? Why isn't he telling them that there is only "one President a time"?
....or if he is, why aren't Pelosi and Reid listening?
Can you refute my claim that to show people respect is better than not?
I don't refute that claim, Tommy, I just think you're being a little disingenuous when you say that all you're trying to do is be polite and create peace in the world. My perception of you is that you use the "Miss Manners" business as a passive-aggressive way to attack other commenters while telling yourself you're above the fray yourself. Obviously, I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.
I agree with you that words do harm and hurt. As I alluded to in my previous post, I do my level best to avoid being a total dick here, with fair-to-middling success. I do try to be honest, though.
I suspect Glenn's had a lot on his plate in terms of deletions the last week or so.
Anyways, there are a number of reasons that the international community has been slow/unable to act with regard to Bush and friends, and if I was a better student in International Law last semester I could do a better job of this, but here goes:
ICJ: The International Court of Justice International, a tribunal that hears cases between sovereign states only. An optional protocol allows for compulsory jurisdiction of claims between states if other methods of resolution fail. The U.S. pulled out of the optional protocol subsequent to that Nicaragua unpleasantness. In any event, decisions of the ICJ don't really have much effect, especially in domestic law (see the Medellin case from last year), and the enforcement of ICJ decisions is through the UN Security Council. The US is a permanent member of the Security Council and can thus veto any resolution calling on the US to make amends in any way were we to lose a case in front of the ICJ, in the same way the US has repeatedly vetoed resolutions condemning Israel.
The ICC: International Criminal Court hears war crimes cases, among a few others. It is designed to punish the perpetrators of serious international crimes, and many here and in Europe certainly think that way of Bush and friends. The US has not only refused to sign on to it, Bush has authorized the military to INVADE the Hague to retrieve any US citizen brought before the court.
Immunity: In international law, governmental officials are usually immune from process, at least with regard to acts that did not occur in the country seeking to bring them to justice. I'm a bit fuzzy on this point. I'm pretty sure you can get a good background by googling "The arrest warrant case."
International law is still evolving. In another hundred years or so it might be a good tool for keeping world leaders honest. I'm not that optimistic.
gratuitous, self-referential post
http://tofubo.blogspot.com/2006/10/republic-is-dead-long-live-republic.html
...the Constitution prohibits writs of attainders and the Geneva Conventions prohibits absolving people who commit war crimes. (Convention IV, Part IV, Section 1, Subsection III, Art. 148.) “No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article”...
http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/BH241.txt (do a search for "Art. 148")
the preceding article (147) stipulates the things you can not do
after a UN truck driver was killed by Israeli artilary fire.
link at sig
What are your beliefs?
Thanks for asking what I believe, Jebbie. I'll try to keep it brief.
1. A quick read of your previous posts seems to indicate a rather biased view of this Blog's owner, his readership, and of Israel's current (and past) despicable actions relative to the Palestinians.
- I have a biased view, as do we all. Mine is more focused on the irresponsible and nonproductive tone employed by G in much of his writing.
2. Do you support the legitimate government of the occupied territories right to govern?
- You mean Hamas? That is a tough one. In their case I'd say no. Hitler was elected too, you know.
3. Do you support the stated goal of Israel to overthrow the legitimate, duly elected government of Gaza?
- see above
4. Do you believe Israel's claim that their strikes are made using only "precision guided" weapons when it appears that most of the IDF's casualties are "blue on blue" in nature?
- the two halves of your statement are not opposites - perhaps I don't understand what blue on blue means?
5. Do you really believe that if Glenn Greenwald said the sun came up in the west that "his followers" would agree with him?
- this is hyperbole, right? I believe that most of G's readers already agree with him on most points, and this is the crux of my theme lately, that there is not much point in writing articles and having a forum like this if it is only to preach to the converted. Likewise, if one wishes to extend one's ideas because one believes they have merit, why pounce on those who disagree - that sure ain't gonna convince them, is i t? I have made the suggestion that G's true underlying purpose is to sell books because I suspect that his style is well suited for that task but not so good at winning converts. I have apologized for this, I was just trying to make a point. He shows every indication of being someone who really cares about our world, as do I and all of us.
6. [mine] I hate wars and am eagerly looking forward to the end of the ones we are fighting now, and want to do all I can, little though it may be. convincing people that I am morally superior to them is just one of the fringe benefits of my noble cause. LOL
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
