I use the term “Double Jeopardy” (in Peru it’s “Cosa juzgada”) meaning that in general you cannot be tried for the same crime twice. I know different countries regulate this right differenlty.
I also understand that there are cases where the right doesn’t apply.
My idea is that the idea of universal jurisdiction cannot mean beeiong tried and convicted four times because in the same crime you killed guys from four different countries.
Really, China? Consistency? It’s no interventon policy is “do something and I’ll kill you”.
We may agree that those specific “Bushies” may be tried by that specific judge, but I think we are now into general territory and i don’t like the precedent.
Right you like FDR so his internment of Japanese Americans doesn’t factor into your metric here. You hate Bush so you over-inflate his impact as causal for all the ills.
I happen to think this economic crisis was largely caused by everyone en masse being greedy and speculating in the housing market. But I guess you’re right, Bush waved his evil magic wand.
I’m not a Bush supporter, I’m simply pointing out that if you line up the Presidents and throw a rock you can find, “Human Rights violations.”
When New York was attacked Bush went out and sought the terrorists who did it. When New Yorkers didn’t want to shoot other Americans Lincoln had the city shelled.
The Nuremberg Trials were held under juristiction of the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal , and was an international agreement, not just the USA.
No, they are not. If they were using those, they’d file a complaint in the Hague in the International Criminal Court- the proper legal authorities for enforcing those agreements.
Well, you are 100% wrong. No country now or ever sees it that way. You kill a bunch of people, among them some Americans, and it does not matter how many times you have been tried in other countries I guarantee that if America gets their hands on you they WILL try you again. I superfuckingguarantee it.
Are you trying for the non-sequitur of the century?
China is consistent in that it rejects foreign intervention in what it considers its internal affairs but also does not try to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries. Unlike the USA who wants to dictate what everybody else should do, and even uses force to carry out its purposes, but then rejects any outsider who would dare intervene in what America considers its own internal affairs. Like torturing foreigners ::rolleyes::
The precedent has been set by America many times before.
Actually, “Spain can claim jurisdiction in the case because five citizens or residents of Spain who were prisoners at Guantánamo Bay have said they were tortured there. The five had been indicted in Spain, but their cases were dismissed after the Spanish Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained under torture was not admissible.”
China is consistent is her multiple violation of human rights. Agreed on outside guys intervening. Not agreed on not intervening in other states’ affairs (China’s concept of what’s theirs is in some cases - Taiwan, Spratyl, Paracel - very particular).
what if the precedent has been set by the US? Does it make it right?
So, you think Felipe Gonzalez had nothing to do with GAL?
Whatever gets you through the night, majo.
Pot, meet kettle.
Isn’t Chukie a US citizen arrested on US soil? Not quite the same.
This whole point that many are making doesn’t make sense.
You say the the US has done the same thing, but that it is wrong; yet it set legal precedent.
Irrelevant. Not what is being discussed here but, ok, since you bring it up, the USA is also consistently violating Human Rights.
You really do not get it but I think intelligent people who might be reading understand the point. China, unlike the USA, does not claim and has never claimed universal jurisdiction over things which happen in other countries. It does not recognize that principle of international law which is defended by the USA. I am not going to go on with this. Intelligent people already understand that and anyone who does not understand it by now is beyond hope.
The non-sequiturs are just astounding. Are you yanking my chain? I give up with you.
You tell me. The point is that the USA claims to have rights which it denies to others. It claims to have jurisdiction over things which happen in foreign countries but it denies the same right to other countries.
Since when nationality or where someone was arrested have anything to do with it? You really are ignorant of how the justice system works.
The USA arrested Noriega in Panama, for which they had to invade the freaking country.
If Spain issues an arrest warrant for those guys it has no intention of invading the USA but it can quietly wait until those guys set foot in Europe and then arrest them. Is that OK with you?
Where did I say that it is wrong? You are just making shit up. You don’t even know what you are arguing.
So I suggest you go back and look at your original quote, where you wrote some science-fiction scenario involving Nicaragua and Paraguay (!) that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the case. Afterwards, you might want to Google “Garzon + GAL” or “Caso Amedo.” Might be in for a bit of surprise if you do.
OTOH, you could just as well save time and read sailor’s response to that particular bit of nonsense once again.
What’s wrong with my science-fiction case, though? It’s my science fiction.
Que les den a todos por el saco y punto, que se dejen de joder con tanto tratado.
Get the indicted on a “patera” across the Gibraltar strait. If they arrive, then take a couple of years off the sentence.
No it proves FDR had a lot more on his plate. Unless you’re putting fourth the assertion Saddam was as bad and dangerous as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
Now would you please tell me what war crimes FDR committed? Keep in mind the US was attacked first by the axis. Unlike Iraq where we where the aggressors over a bumbling ape’s WMD lies.
Seriously why you are trying to defend this lying incompetent monster? What good has he done? Take this for example: Maher Arar - Wikipedia (the story is well documented and cited at the bottom of the article).
This innocent Canadian was kidnapped sent to Syria to be tortured by Bush’s henchman. The only reason he got out was Canada, unlike some despot torturing nations like the US put on pressure to get him released. How many innocents were abused ? How many didn’t have the virtuous neighbor to the north to protect them from the tyrants in the US government?
Do you think torturing innocent people is okay? If so you’re a sociopathic morally reprehensible sick fuck.
Do you think every day he was whipped till he screamed for mercy was all right? What about others like him? Are their cries of agony for mercy water under the bridge?
Anyone who torturers or supports torturers is the lowest scum on earth.
See I’m just a simple country lawyer who happens to be getting a LL.M in International law and in fact wrote a paper last year about Mr. Taylor/Belfast/Whatever else he calls himself…and well you really don’t have any idea what you’re talking about, at least in regards to this particular phrase.
The particular statute that Taylor was convicted under, requires that the accused be in the US at the time of arrest or be a US citizen for it to apply. Chuckie Boy got a two for one deal on that.
Secondly, the US can almost always get jurisdiction over its own citizens for crimes committed in other countries. Which is why people can get busted for flying to Thailand or whatever for the sex with minors.
Thirdly, my memory is a little fuzzy, but Noriega was committing crimes within the United States (sort of) and he officially wasn’t the president of Panama anyway, so he couldn’t really claim executive immunity on that. Of course, all the crimes he was committing came as a result of US help, so America was just a touch hypocritical on that one.
As for the rest of your argument…I agree with the thought, but not with the execution. Unilateral prosecution isn’t really an better than unilateral warfare. We have mechanisms for dealing with war criminals. Whether than be domestically or hopefully, through an future international tribunal. But like everything else in world politics, its got to be handled carefully.
Missed the edit window and I just realized my previous post doesn’t really make a whole lot of sense.
But on the Noriega issue, the main concern was that Old Pineapple Face was still a danger to the US and that he was actively harassing US troops (or at least that was the claim). That case is a fair bit different that members of a former administration that no longer have any power. The danger has passed, so to speak.
I’m a bit rambly tonight. Sorry, got a touch of the flu.
FDR did do that. You have me on that point so I’ll concede it. I don’t know about the Lincoln shelling event, but I’d prolly concede that too with a decent cite.
While it doesn’t excuse their actions both Lincoln and FDR are remembered for positive contributions they made to the country and the leadership they provided in some of the country’s most dire chrises.
Can you give me 3 positive leadership decisions made by Bush?
To clarify what I mean for example Lincoln is credited with ending slavery, and FDR is credited with social security, the highway system and ending the Great Depression.
Now I put fourth a different argument. Andrew Jackson and Grant committed Ethnic Cleansing against the Cherokee. And as you said FDR put Japanese Americans in concentration camps. Do you think that’d excuse a modern president? I sure hope not.
Lincoln and FDR are dead and gone. How do you punish the dead? Bush’s crimes are fresh. We can punish Bush and his henchmen now and send a clear message to the future we won’t tolerate this any more.
But we won’t cause we’re complacent sick fucks who’d let a cold blooded war criminal go free.
Well, that is fine and well, but, again, it is the USA who claims the right to act unilaterally and who refuses to become signatory to the International Criminal Court. So, again, it is not a consistent position to act unilaterally but demand that others do not.
I agree that a multilateral approach and international treaties are better ways of handling things but it is the USA who (1) refuses to participate in such international treaties or (2) is a signatory but breaks them anyway. Again, the USA is in no position to demand that others do not act unilaterally.
That makes no sense. People are punished for crimes committed in the past and the fact that they may or may not commit further crimes is irrelevant. The punishment is meant to serve justice as well as deter others, everybody, from commiting further crimes.
Actually the Trail of Tears was under Martin Van Buren, not Jackson. Jackson had been out of office for a year before it started. General Winfield Scott is the real villian here. Jackson gets the negative press as he did come up with the Treaty that was the basis of the Trail. And also because frankly, Jackson is considered a great man and a famous president by many, whilst MvB is obscure. I am not sure why you blame Grant for this, he was about 16 at the time.