It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by tracehd1
I haven't read through all post so if this points been made...I apologize. Countries outside the U.S can if they choose to prosecute GWB and, fill in name here ___________________________ they may prosecute and carry out sentence according to the UN laws. GWB and friends should really watch their ass when they're traveling. It's just like when we prosecuted WAR Crimes concerning Hitler and his Men!!!
I hope GWB and friends travel soon....8yrs of hell...he doesn't deserve his cozy little lodgings in Dallas!
Originally posted by skeptic_al
Originally posted by lunarminer
reply to post by skeptic_al
For the same reasons that they attacked our embassies in Africa and attacked the USS Cole.
They are fanatics and they consider the US to be the "Great Satan".
Trying to figure out the motivations of terrorists is kind of like trying to assess the sanity of someone who is insane.
I do believe, you belive all the bull-plop GWB has dishing out over
If you look at the history of Yousef, the truth will set you free.
His Resons could not be more explicit. But Americans just took
him as madman because all he wanted to do was blow blow stuff
up. And I reckon, half of America love to blow stuff up.
Originally posted by Keyhole
Originally posted by Lightworth
An overall more intelligent species than humans (overall) can discern the real solution: a compromise. Let truth without punishments be the real justice
And what is that going to say to the future leaders in the world?
That as long as they admit that they've broken international laws (not really international laws, because once a country signs a document like the Geneva Convention, it becomes THAT countries law!) or committed crimes against humanity, that, HEY, as long as you admit it, your off the hook?
IF crimes were committed, those who committed them should be held accountable!
I wish I could have worked out a solution with the courts like that the few times I ended up accused of something against the law!
I could have just have admitted it and not have had to worry about a thing!
Sorry, but in my opinion, it's time to start holding people, like Bush & company, and a lot of other leaders in other countries, accountable for their actions!
Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by sos37
Obligatory? Don't make me laugh!
You make me laugh a lot sos. I was saying it is most likely not obligatory. I question your motives since you obviously don't realize what I was saying or took me out of context.
You seem to want to pin the blame on one man like all the other sheep on here who cry foul, yet you ignore the fact that the hands of Congress is just as dirtied on the same grounds
I don't ignore Congress; I think they are just as responsible for certain acts, when it comes to others though the facts lead back to the president and his cronies, not congress. We still live in a world where facts and evidence are important right?
Oh wait, why I am asking this of the guy who thought a pixilated face on the internet is a reliable source, long as it tells me what I want to hear. How’s that for bad motives?
[edit on 28-1-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]
Originally posted by BlueRaja
When courtries are in violation, there may be sanctions, and other penalites, but their's no enforcement agency to prosecute governments of other countries(nor should there be).
The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights and achieving world peace.
The organization is divided into administrative bodies, primarily:
* The General Assembly (the main deliberative assembly);
* The Security Council (decides certain resolutions for peace and security);
* The Economic and Social Council (assists in promoting international economic and social cooperation and development);
* The Secretariat (provides studies, information and facilities needed by the UN);
* The International Court of Justice (the primary judicial organ)
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), located in The Hague, Netherlands, is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations.
A related court, the International Criminal Court (ICC), began operating in 2002 through international discussions initiated by the General Assembly. It is the first permanent international court charged with trying those who commit the most serious crimes under international law, including war crimes and genocide.
The following courts and tribunals detailed on this page are either administered by or have an operational relationship with the United Nations:
International Court of Justice (ICJ) - "World Court"
International Criminal Court (ICC)
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)
Special Court for Sierra Leone
Special Tribunal for Cambodia: Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia
• International Court of Justice (ICJ) - "World Court"
Jurisdiction: Cases before the court involve UN member states, not individuals (Statute Article 34). States must provide their consent by agreement, declaration, or a clause in a treaty.
• International Criminal Court (ICC)
Jurisdiction: Parties to the Rome Statute. The Court has jurisdiction over four types of crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. The Rome Statute does not currently define the term "aggression," leaving it open for definition at the first review conference of the Statute.
Note: Cases before the court involve individuals, not states. The UN Security Council may refer a case to the ICC as was done with Darfur and Sudanese President Al-Bashir; however, the referral to prosecute individuals of non-party states for actions in non-party states remains controversial. The crimes of Darfur in western Sudan marked the first referral by the UN Security Council (Resolution 1593). In 2005, the ICC Prosecutor received a sealed list prepared by the Commission of Inquiry on Darfur. On 6 June 2005, the Prosecutor concluded that the case met statutory requirements for initiating an investigation.
The fact that you even brought up the word "obligatory" makes me laugh even now.
So if you blame Congress as much as you blame Bush, why does that not show up in your posts?
Originally posted by BlueRaja
Who enforces their judgements though? International Law is largely voluntary, due to the inability to effectively enforce policy, without occupying another country.
Today, Thursday 28 November 2002, Radomir Kovac and Zoran Vukovic were transferred to Norway to serve their sentences as handed down by a Trial Chamber and affirmed by the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
Norway became the third United Nations Member State to enter into an Enforcement of Sentences Agreement with the Tribunal on 24 April 1998. The other countries are Italy (signed on 6 February 1997), Finland (7 May 1997), Sweden (23 February 1999), Austria (23 July 1999), France (25 February 2000) Spain (28 March 2000) and Denmark (19 June 2002).
Slovakia today became the fifteenth European country to agree to enforce sentences imposed by the United Nations tribunal
More than 37 people convicted by the tribunal have either served, or are currently serving, their sentence in one of the countries which have signed an agreement. Five others are awaiting transfer to one of the States.
Sentences of imprisonment, in accordance with Chapter X of the Rome Statute, shall be enforced by States which have declared to the Court their willingness to accept sentenced persons. Pursuant to Rule 200 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the Court may enter into bilateral arrangements with States with a view to regulate the acceptance of persons sentenced by the Court.
According to the Statute, the Court, in deciding in which of the consenting States a person should serve its sentence, shall take into consideration circumstances such as the application of standards governing the treatment of prisoners, and the views and nationality of the sentenced person. After the Court has made a decision it shall notify the State with information regarding the prisoner's nationality, his or her medical status, the sentence and the final judgment. The person is then to be delivered to the territory of the State.
Originally posted by Absum!
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by midnightbrigade
reply to post by pieman
Maybe those that want to ignore these inhumane and illegal actions can answer this.
What is the punishment for Al-Qaida solders that water board US soldiers?
The reason we don't torture is because we don't want our boys tortured.
I hear you but our noble position on torture has never helped us much, never has been a guarantee that our boys would be well treated. In fact our policy seems in light of the historical treatment of our boys more like something we did for our own conscience sake. Not really saying thats a good reason to start a torture policy.
These guys were are dealing with now days cant even be recognized as real soldiers. They are like rouge citizens of other nations and they recognize no rules nor do they make any effort to distinguish between military and civilian targets. Many of their own home nations don't even recognize their actions officially.
Originally posted by Lightworth
An overall more intelligent species than humans (overall) can discern the real solution: a compromise. Let truth without punishments be the real justice and start over again with a very new system or Matrix... you astronomically unforgiving and egotistical little creepazoids (to whom it applies).
[edit on 28-1-2009 by Lightworth]
Originally posted by lunarminer
As I have pointed out, several times now, the US is not a member of the ICC and is therefore, not bound by its decisions.
United States President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (‘Rome Statute’) on December 31 December 2000, the last day that the Rome Statute was open for signature. Shortly after the Bush Administration entered office and just before the 1 July 2002 entry into force of the Rome Statute, US President George W. Bush “nullified” the Clinton signature on 6 May 2002. Since 2002, the United States has launched a full-scale multi-pronged campaign against the International Criminal Court, claiming that the ICC may initiate politically-motivated prosecutions against US nationals.
Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs)
As part of its efforts, the Bush administration has been approaching countries around the world seeking to conclude Bilateral Immunity Agreements, purportedly based on Article 98 of the Rome Statute, excluding its citizens and military personnel from the jurisdiction of the Court. These agreements prohibit the surrender to the ICC of a broad scope of persons including current or former government officials, military personnel, and US employees (including contractors) and nationals.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
America pays 1/4 of the UN bills. The UN is in New York - an American City.
You all can stop drooling. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.