Arresting US elected officials

I was watching Bill O'Riley last night (5/25) and he did a segment on this issue. I guess Amnesty International is stating other countries should arrest US elected officials upon them leaving the US.

Wow so many questions about this

1. Would another country actually do this? If so who?

2. Does this hurt the Bush war on Terror?

3. Could this bring other countries into the war (opposing the US)?

So many other questions. I look forward to debating this! Let me know your thoughts.

Who were they talking about, and why should they be arrested? War crimes or somethin'?

Zip

Yes. Amensty Int'l is encouraging other countries to arrest US leaders because of war crimes. He was spefic in reguards to the way we are treating terrorist jailed in Cuba.

Bill countered saying its not US policy to treat them badly, and the offending troops are being prosecuted. Also these prisoners don't have lawyers because they were arrested not wearing uniforms.

My concern is if another country actually arrested a Senator or something. You know the US would go in with guns blazing!

well there are a lot of politicians from other countries in America right now, i wonder wat we do to them.

Do you have a source for this?

Amnesty Int'l usually doesn't try to influence drastic measures like this, they just report on human rights violations and try to get people to use things like petitions and other forms of awareness and communication to correct problems.

web.amnesty.org...

The report is way too long for me to read the whole thing from work, but at a glance, I don't see where it condones drastic action against U.S. leaders.

Zip

Here is something from Bill O'Riley's web site about Amnesty Intl "declaring war" on us as he puts it. I was suprised by this as well. I thought Amnesty Int'l wasn't an extreme organization. Here is the link:

www.billoreilly.com...



Here is the actual text:

"In a shocking display of belligerence, the human rights organization Amnesty International is accusing the USA of committing illegal acts and is actually threatening American leaders. A statement by Amnesty International says this: 'The apparent high-level architects of torture should think twice before planning their next vacation to places like Acapulco or the French Riviera because they may find themselves under arrest.' Can you believe it? There's no question that AI is a far-left outfit, but now it has become openly hostile to the US on the terror issue. Amnesty International has called Guantanamo Bay 'the gulag of our time' and has listed the United States as one of the worst human rights abusers in the world. AI is not an objective human rights group - it's a far left outfit that sympathizes with people who kill Americans."

edited: added text from O'Riley's website

[edit on 26-5-2005 by Hlodde]

I could think of a couple of elected US officials who should be arrested and tried for War Crimes.

'The apparent high-level architects of torture should think twice before planning their next vacation to places like Acapulco or the French Riviera because they may find themselves under arrest.'

I could think of a couple of elected US officials who should be arrested and tried for War Crimes.

A lot of people would agree with Ocelot's point.

But the text of the quote above that is absolutely hysterical.

How about a dose of reality folks? Ready for it? There does not exist anyone on this planet who is capable of surrounding the sitting President of the United States, taking him into custody, withstanding the firestorm of consequences for doing so, and forcing him to stand trial.

I don't care if you don't like Bush, America, or me. That is reality. It ain't happening. Entertaining it is a waste of brainpower.

Maybe the theory sounds nice to some of you. Maybe you think it's deserved. I respect that. But how in the world can you (with a straight face) tell me you think someone will "arrest" Bush on a diplomatic trip. Get over it, this isn't the movies.

I don't care who runs the country, Bush, Kerry, Clinton, Eddie Internationalbankerdude, or Joe Illuminatiguy...

Guantanamo Bay is NOT what America should stand for Americans should NOT stand for Guantanamo Bay. Politics aside!

Zip

Originally posted by Djarums
How about a dose of reality folks? Ready for it? There does not exist anyone on this planet who is capable of surrounding the sitting President of the United States, taking him into custody, withstanding the firestorm of consequences for doing so, and forcing him to stand trial.

I don't care if you don't like Bush, America, or me. That is reality. It ain't happening. Entertaining it is a waste of brainpower.

I agree with you 100% on this, it ain't happening. But nothing wrong with dreaming is there?

[edit on 26-5-2005 by Ocelot]

What is so wrong with guantanamo? Do you guys want to give them lawyers or just be charged with something? also amnesty referred to the detention center as a gulag, which is a horribly inaccurate depiction of Gitmo.

this is why amnesty internation is so ineffective.....they have no teeth!!
they can say whatever they like, the politicians, and governments will still do what they want. I doubt if any country has the nerve to arrest anyone in this administration. the consequences wouldn't be pleasant I don't think.

but we, as americans, should really be concerned with their criticism, regardless....since we kind of are trying to portray ourselves as standing on the moral high-ground, and the bearer of that great light called democracy and all that crap!! This isn't good for our country, and well, if other countries want to take AI to heart, they don't really need to arrest anyone to make our lives difficult...just tell china to stop trading with us....slap on a few economic sanctions and well, there ya go!!!

an well, to be honest, O'Reilly doesn't seem to be too unbiased himself, he may be playing this up a little, just to get the anti-european sentiment going stronger.

[edit on 26-5-2005 by dawnstar]

Originally posted by Hlodde
Here is something from Bill O'Riley's web site about Amnesty Intl "declaring war" on us as he puts it. I was suprised by this as well. I thought Amnesty Int'l wasn't an extreme organization. Here is the link:

www.billoreilly.com...



Here is the actual text:

"In a shocking display of belligerence, the human rights organization Amnesty International is accusing the USA of committing illegal acts and is actually threatening American leaders. A statement by Amnesty International says this: 'The apparent high-level architects of torture should think twice before planning their next vacation to places like Acapulco or the French Riviera because they may find themselves under arrest.' Can you believe it? There's no question that AI is a far-left outfit, but now it has become openly hostile to the US on the terror issue. Amnesty International has called Guantanamo Bay 'the gulag of our time' and has listed the United States as one of the worst human rights abusers in the world. AI is not an objective human rights group - it's a far left outfit that sympathizes with people who kill Americans."

edited: added text from O'Riley's website

[edit on 26-5-2005 by Hlodde]

AI is hypocritical if they support abortion. Now that aside, I don't blame AI for saying that.

People need to stop blindly following the party line and look at everything--there's two sides to a story.

No-spin zone, huh? Is that why I'm getting dizzy over here?

Foreign powers tend to not arrest the political officers of other foreign powers. Its bad business, so to speak.

Also, keep in mind, no country has jurisdiction on this. Its not against american law for a somali warlord to steal money from orphans. The US has no jurisdiction.

But what it can do is go into somalia and fight with the guy and set things straight.

Domestic politics are the politics of law and order. International politics are the politics of power. The US has power, therefore it can choose to exercise it, invade, capture, kill, etc. But what it doesn't have is a legal claim over another sovereign nation's citizens.

International law in a sense changes this, but then, again, the issues of jurisdiction are very unclear, and, more pragmatically, the only international courts on the globe have specifically, and repeatedly, flat out rejected complaints against US leaders and soldiers. So any nation doing so would simply be commiting and act of war.

Think about it, what if the US arrested George Galloway a few weeks ago? There's no basis for that. He's simply not subject to american laws, and he broke no american law.

Also, political officials have diplomatic immunity. It'd be immpossible for international governance to operate if leaders faced courts every time they went to a meeting in another country.

I must note thought that Amenesty apparently has not urged anyone to arrest american officials. All its done is noted that the administration has gone so overboard (according to them anyway), that they've simply reached a new level and might very well find themselves under arrest when traveling abroad. Which is different from actually urging others to arrest them, and is also rather silly. No international court is going to do this, they've rejected such calls. And no soveriegn nation has jurisdiction over any american, let alone an american official.

Amnesty was probably referring to Sweden, Germany, and Italy, where illegal abductions and torture of european citizen by the CIA are already being prosecuted.

Also, as far as i see it, Amnesty is not only referring to torture in Guantanamo, but also to disappearances and torture in the US gulag composed of a multitude of secret prison camps in Egypt, Jordan, Uzbekistan(human boiling), Iraq, Afghanistan, and others, where, according to eyewitness reports, terror suspects and political dissidents are subjected electroshock torture.