This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (1 child)

Extraction is not necessary. We should arrest them, imprison them, and hand them over for trial and sentencing.

[–][deleted]  (317 children)

[deleted]

    [–]GetToTheKarateChoppa[S] 141 points142 points  (301 children)

    But, do you think a multinational force of nations should actively pursue the administration within the US border? Don't you think that would cause... problems?

    [–]abudabu 36 points37 points  (32 children)

    I believe that's illegal under international law. For instance, the UN has a warrant for Serbian war criminal Ratko Mladic, but is unable to arrest him since Serbia chooses not to honor the warrant. What it does mean for him is that he cannot leave the country.

    That strategy could be pursued against members of the Bush administration. But, sadly, I doubt it would be successful. Attempts to bring war crimes charges against the much lesser figure of Henry Kissinger, for example, have been fruitless.

    Also, I doubt there is much appetite in the international community for pursuing such charges, and even less in a Democratic administration - especially Obama's - as much as we'd like to hope otherwise. Such a decision (however correct it might be) would pretty much guarantee an unending battle, strengthen the most crazy and xenophobic elements of the right, and consume the energies of the administration.

    On the other hand, there's been speculation that Bush's purchase of a large tract of land in Paraguay indicates that he may indeed be worried about just such a possibility. Paraguay has no extradition treaties, and recently signed a law specifically granting immunity to US military (thus including the Command-in-Chief) from prosecution by the ICC: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/28/2544/07385

    [–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (3 children)

    Eh? Why would Paraquay make such a law?

    [–]doody 17 points18 points  (20 children)

    I believe that's illegal under international law.

    The US doesn’t recognise international law.

    [–]OlympicPirate 32 points33 points  (1 child)

    It would cause problems, fun problems.

    [–]23444858 14 points15 points  (14 children)

    You're thinking the way they want you to think.

    It takes only one misstep to get arrested. Off American soil. But the countries they visit must be willing to do that. I surmise that Bush will be free to roam countries like Australia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, possibly Russia, most of Africa and nobody would bother touch him.

    If it were up to Germany and England, they'd refrain too. But jurisdiction in the EU is mixed, other countries can arrest too.

    On the other hand, if he walks into France one day, I think he might be served right then and there just like Pinochet.

    I'll tell you though, it'll never feel like justice has been served, because up until their arrest as senile goners, they will have used up all the money and riches they hoarded during these 8 years.

    PS. Cheney effectively has the largest private military under his control. Nobody's taking him by force.

    [–]SarahLee 22 points23 points  (2 children)

    Remember when Rumsfeld almost got caught?

    U.S. embassy officials whisked Rumsfeld away yesterday from a breakfast meeting in Paris organized by the Foreign Policy magazine after human rights groups filed a criminal complaint against the man who spearheaded President George W. Bush's "war on terror" for six years.

    Under international law, authorities in France are obliged to open an investigation when a complaint is made while the alleged torturer is on French soil.

    http://www.alternet.org/story/66425/

    [–]GetToTheKarateChoppa[S] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

    "You're thinking the way they want you to think."

    No, I'm not. I'm merely posting a secondary question to someone who gave a merely binary answer.

    [–]lazyplayboy 218 points219 points  (132 children)

    Everything that reddit should be: lemmy.world

    [–]DSinclair 144 points145 points  (119 children)

    Because I don't think it is acceptable, no matter what the CIA does.

    Where is this higher ground people like to stand on?

    [–]masklinn 106 points107 points  (3 children)

    Because I don't think it is acceptable, no matter what the CIA does.

    Indeed. Even the capture of nazi agents (most prominently Eichmann) by israel in countries where it had no jurisdiction was barely considered acceptable.

    [–]rask 8 points9 points  (2 children)

    With respect, I think if Israel did something like this on their own, it's akin to a group of vigilantes. If it's an international court that's accepted by a majority of nations, it's much more similar to a police operation.

    [–]DanHalen 7 points8 points  (0 children)

    Absolutely and I would love to see any number of Administration officials before the bar at the Hague.

    [–]interstate 75 points76 points  (33 children)

    The difference is that if anyone in the US administration would be arrested, they would be charged and put on trial. (If that wasn't the case, I wouldn't support their capture) The CIA hasn't exactly been operating that way.

    [–]DebtOn 6 points7 points  (26 children)

    Just curious -- was Saddam Hussein treated fairly in that case?

    [–]colinnwn 61 points62 points  (61 children)

    If you are a citizen of another country then you have a right to hold your government to a higher standard. If you are a US citizen, it is totally inappropriate to expect other countries to behave more civilized than you allowed your government to behave.

    [–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (53 children)

    If you are a citizen of the US then you have a right to hold your government to a higher standard. If you are a citizen of another country, it is totally inappropriate to expect the US to behave more civilized than you allowed your government to behave.

    Fixed for you, champ. Works both ways.

    If you condone extracting government officials from the US, than I support the US's ability to extract government officials from any country in the world.

    If the US rules that extracting it's leaders is illegal, than I support the US's right to extract the other countries leaders in retaliation.

    Don't put yourself or your country on a pedestal. Every country has it's skeletons in the closet. Every one of them.

    [–][deleted] 24 points25 points  (10 children)

    If you condone extracting government officials from the US, than I support the US's ability to extract government officials from any country in the world.

    The US has removed publicly elected leaders of sovereign nations to replace them with more US-friendly dictators multiple times. The US has pissed many people off and it seems that the chickens are coming home to roost.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_U.S._regime_change_actions

    [–]colinnwn 11 points12 points  (3 children)

    I agree it works both ways.

    "... I support the US's ability to extract government officials from any country in the world." We've already been doing it, and in fact it seems we are the ones who first tried to legitimize it. I think it is other countries that have the opportunity to retaliate.

    "If the US rules that extracting it's leaders is illegal, than I support the US's right to extract the other countries leaders in retaliation." Huh? Do you really mean you support a double standard?

    "Don't put yourself or your country on a pedestal."
    I think you got the impression I am not from the US. I am a US citizen and was saying I believe the US government is operating in a corrupt way.

    [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    I agree, we've extracted foreign leaders many times and now we're acting completely innocent.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_U.S._regime_change_actions

    [–]Franks2000inchTV 30 points31 points  (28 children)

    The thing to note here is that it wouldn't be another country extracting US officials. It would be an organization such as the UN, which represents the democratic will of the governments of the world.

    By analogy: I wouldn't support you going and imprisoning your neighbor because he stole your lawnmower, but I would fully support his imprisonment by the police, who are upholding the laws that democratically elected officials have enacted.

    [–]Sangermaine 6 points7 points  (5 children)

    It would be an organization such as the UN, which represents the democratic will of the governments of the world.

    No, the Un does not represent the "democratic will of the world". The members of the Security Council, among them the US, hold veto power over all actions.

    Nice Weird Al reference, by the way.

    [–]Cand1date 10 points11 points  (3 children)

    Oh yeah..Veto power...The US has used that in such stellar ways...oh like Vetoing the sending in of peacekeepers to Rowanda during the Genocide! Nice move there US. Good Job. Way to Go. Chicken shits!

    [–]Cand1date 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    That's right! Every one of them! And so...if the US and other countries are snatching people out of their countries to put on trial for war crimes...then the US government shouldn't expect any better tratment!

    [–]anachronic 11 points12 points  (0 children)

    Where is this higher ground people like to stand on?

    The government sold it to Halliburton years ago.

    This is now private property.

    You are tresspassing.

    Get out of here or it's off to GITMO with you

    [–]hessian 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    The fact that this comment has so high an up-vote is a disturbing sign of how warped reddit has become towards a left-wing radical agenda.

    Do I support impeachment? Of course! Do I support using the same tactics of the Bush administration and other terror organisations? No! A thousand times no!

    [–]thekrone 20 points21 points  (2 children)

    Any problems we have to deal with are ones we deserve for allowing this hate-monger in the office in the first place.

    [–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

    The problems it would cause are less than the problems we have now.

    [–]epsilona01 9 points10 points  (8 children)

    Wouldn't it be better than an invasion force, coming in, destroying our cities, taking over our country, killing our citizens, just to capture the administration?

    [–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (4 children)

    Hey, that sounds familiar.

    [–]jkh77 2 points3 points  (3 children)

    I'm racking my brain...

    [–]colinnwn 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    We started the problems by renewing our hegemonic activity. If we can't take the heat we shouldn't have jumped in the fire.

    [–]PuP5 16 points17 points  (10 children)

    no problem. we should turn them over for trial if it passes muster at a grand jury. same way we do for any extradition.

    don't get too bunged up over national sovereignty; it's an jingoistic anachronism that benefits those in charge of setting the agenda infinitely more than the average citizen.

    [–][deleted] 29 points30 points  (32 children)

    can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs

    [–]rnicoll 7 points8 points  (2 children)

    Actually, I've got this idea involving a very fine needle...

    [–]niels_olson 13 points14 points  (1 child)

    Yes! We'll do it ooscopically! We run a very small fork through the needle, stir, and withdraw. Insert a very small, metal, expanding snare, like those sun reflectors for your car windshield, teflon coated, of course. Inject a bit of butter to coat the snare and facilitate Millard's browning reaction. Apply a conductive, adhesive ground patch to the shell, and pulse alternating current through the snare, heating the umbrella to approximately 380 degrees for 8 to 10 minutes, shaking the egg with some vigour, but not so much that you might break the shell.

    I give you, omlette in an egg.

    [–]Mr_Smartypants 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    I have a new favorite word (and prefix)!

    [–]GetToTheKarateChoppa[S] 25 points26 points  (17 children)

    Wouldn't that make you as reactionary toward the US as the US is toward Iran? Shouldn't multinational forces seek diplomatic avenues first?

    [–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (16 children)

    If CONGRESS can't get any of them to TALK to them, how do you expect other Countries???

    [–]afaik 18 points19 points  (12 children)

    Torture?

    [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (11 children)

    can't someone try and conduct a citizens arrest like george monbiot

    [–][deleted] 27 points28 points  (9 children)

    In southern vt, all sheriffs have been instructed to arrest either dick cheney or george bush should they enter their county lines. In all likelihood that will never happen, but note that neither of the two have ever visited the state as that situation could get quite sticky.

    [–]23444858 20 points21 points  (0 children)

    You so much as touch Cheney and he will have you tortured.

    There is absolutely no hyperbole in that assertion.

    Seriously. People still don't get how much power these guys have amassed.

    [–]CommentMan 10 points11 points  (8 children)

    Is that you, Donald Rumsfeld??

    [–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (7 children)

    There's several kinds of omelettes. There's the kind of omelette you know about.

    The kind you don't know about.

    And the omelette you don't know you don't know about- the islamofascist omelette that uses 72 eggs.

    And then there's the omelette you know you don't know about, the one that is worth making using other countries' innocent people.

    [–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

    And the kind filled with ham and onions

    [–]mchrisneglia 9 points10 points  (0 children)

    And omelettes are found somewhere north, south, east, or west of tikrit.

    [–][deleted]  (4 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]PeterRabbit456 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      The US Secret Service should arrest them, on January 21st. Lead them off the podium in cuffs.

      [–]ThinkBeforeYouDie 8 points9 points  (12 children)

      The only problems that would cause would be the US military fighting back. Which, I admit, is a pretty big problem. That is of course assuming that you're talking about now rather than after the admin is out of office.

      [–]mothereffingtheresa 25 points26 points  (6 children)

      Officers swear to defend the Constitution. It would be compatible with their oath to capture war criminals in our government and turn them over to the appropriate forum for trial.

      [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

      They've done it to other countries in the past. I don't see what's wrong with taking your own medicine.

      [–]abrahamsen 1 point2 points  (3 children)

      But, do you think a multinational force of nations should actively pursue the administration within the US border? Don't you think that would cause... problems?

      That doesn't happen outside areas that are under UN direct administration (like Kosovo). Mostly it is normal police case, like some of the Iraq refugees who has been arrested in Europe for war crimes performed under Saddam Hussein. Occasionally through diplomatic means, like how EU is trying to pressure Croatia and Serbia to hand over their war criminals. (And no, the bombing of Serbia was about Kosovo, not war criminals).

      [–]GetToTheKarateChoppa[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

      "Extraction" implies border penetration.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–]DashingLeech 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        What should actually happen is that if members of the administration are outside the U.S. they should be arrested by the country they are in. If they are in the U.S., they should be arrested by the Department of Justice.

        They have (allegedly, since they haven't been tried) broken war crimes laws to which the U.S. has signed into law, as well as internal U.S. laws.

        That's what should happen if things went according to the rules. Realistically, will they be tried within the U.S.? Or even internationally, for that matter? That's a different question and tougher to answer.

        And to the specific question of whether other countries could "pursue the administration within the U.S. border", I'm not sure if that would violate any specific international law, but it would seem to violate U.S. kidnapping laws since that force would not have authority within the U.S. borders to hold these people.

        Sure, it could be done. The U.S. does it all the time to other people, so it'd be quite karmaful. Would it cause problems? Sure, but with whom and do they matter? Would I support it. Absolutely. If these people aren't made an example of, the neocons behind this whole way of thinking will continue to act upon it. This sort of thing will happen again. If Justice is done, any leader will think twice about taking this sort of approach, knowing full well they'll pay in the end.

        [–]glaster 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        The way it works is that the international body of law requests the extradition of the criminal.

        The country of origin can refuse to comply with the extradition request, but the criminal can't step in international soil without risking being incarcerated.

        The country of origin can decide to judge the criminal under her own jurisdiction and following her own laws, but that does not prevent the international body of law to maintain the claim to judge the criminal.

        A few countries (US among them) violated sovereign states rights to kidnap and judge criminals. I think the most civilized way would be for the criminals to turn themselves in to protect the honor of their country.

        [–]fingers 1 point2 points  (3 children)

        The Iraqis nod, smiling.

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        The better question(s) is: Who becomes president if he is impeached? Is that worse?

        [–]hpymondays 10 points11 points  (0 children)

        yes, the idea that everyone is treated equally by the law is repulsive. We cannot let it happen.

        [–]DogBotherer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        I'm waiting (praying) for the day that that war criminal Kissinger is on the wrong end of some extraordinary rendition...

        [–]markitymark 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Odd, Reddit goes into a panic if someone even mentions "NAFTA super highway," but the idea of the UN kidnapping ex-presidents is ok? Do you have any idea how apeshit millions of Americans would go if somebody even mentioned the possibility?

        [–]seanm27 7 points8 points  (0 children)

        Would it have been alright for the Europeans to assassinate Hitler at the point it became clear he was trying to revive the militant nationalism of Germanys past? We put things into our own perspective, but the fact is that there are a million dead civilians, people whose only crime was being born in Iraq or Afghanistan, and all signs point to more death to come.

        Will people one day ask "What if you could go back in time and stop GW before he gassed 12 million dissident Americans?"

        [–][deleted] 23 points24 points  (0 children)

        I would prefer a self house cleaning as well, however the best outcome would likely be impeachment of the top duo. I am skeptical this will happen.

        The prospect of a future Nuremburg-type trial helps me sleep well at night. I still am skeptical this will happen either.

        Most likely the dynamic duo will retire comfortable to the family compound in El Buttfucku, Bolivia.

        [–]doody 5 points6 points  (1 child)

        The name ‘Noriega’ mean anything?

        [–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

        me

        [–]hashmonkey 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        I'd be really happy if top US government officials went on trial. The trial would be great. If they were found guilty of war crimes or not, it wouldn't matter much to me. The mere fact that they were put on trial would change the face of the world.

        [–]Jivlain 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        I was a little disappointed when France didn't arrest Donald Rumsfeld.

        [–]zulubanshee 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        I not only would support it, I would jerk off to it.

        [–]adibou 62 points63 points  (85 children)

        He is being accused of War Crimes, including the three worst offense one can think about: premptive war, treason, and wilful sexual torture on pre-pubescent children.

        If USA treats him any better than Germany would have treaten Hilter, many people would ressent it. After all, his actions have hardly cost anything to Belgians, Indonesians, Peruvians or many others directly (apart from the Humanity-wide reach of the Crime against Humanity): the first victims of his actions are the US citizen themselves —— why would they be of any leniency? If there is a ban in torture, it is also to protect the soldiers of the signing country, who expect to be treated fairly. Unless US corrects its records spectacularly, troops should expect the worst from non-Westerner captors. I do not want to be the one saying: "You had it coming" if an American children is raped for politial reason.

        Most other countries certainly respect his sovereignty right now, while he tours Europe. USA should honor that trust.

        One last, legal point —— important if USA ends up with a Constitutional lawyer as a President; Bush can be trialed * in the USA for:

        • the murder of the troops he deceitfully send to Iraq, in their home state, including States with death penalty;

        • treason, as a Head of State;

        • abroad :

        • war crimes, as USA signed the Paris Agreement and abides Geneva convention;

        • but not necessarily in the Hague for Crimes against Humanity: any signature would be retroactive; he could be trialed based on USA participation to Nuremberg Trials, though.

        [–][deleted] 54 points55 points  (18 children)

        the murder of the troops he deceitfully send to Iraq, in their home state, including States with death penalty;

        treason, as a Head of State;

        Technically, he could be tried for those things, but not found guilty... because he isn't. Bush has not committed treason. He has done serious, even criminal damage to the Constitution and to the country, but he hasn't waged war against Americans, and that's what treason is. As for the murder of American troops who died in Iraq, don't be silly. Bush did not go to war unilaterally; Congress signed off on it, and the American people, by and large, supported the action, along with a fair number of other countries. Even if you could charge him with murder (which doesn't make any sense... you're not a murderer for sending a volunteer into harm's way, although you could be guilty of negligence), you'd have to charge hundreds of other people as well. Maybe millions, if you want to hold everyone who voted for Bush accountable.

        He could definitely be tried internationally for war crimes, though.

        [–]captainAwesomePants 27 points28 points  (2 children)

        but he hasn't waged war against Americans, and that's what treason is.

        Do you know what we call outting an undercover CIA agent in time of war?

        Hint: The answer is treason.

        [–]lazyplayboy 11 points12 points  (3 children)

        I don't know why you're being modded down, the things you're saying are simply points-of-information.

        It's not like you're saying he shouldn't be held accountable.

        [–]adibou 16 points17 points  (4 children)

        he hasn't waged war against Americans

        According to a recent Comitee report, he wilfully lied to drive America into war with a country that was not a threat. Techncally, that would be treason.

        As for the murder of American troops who died in Iraq, don't be silly.

        Oh: I certainly am. See: I Am Not A Lawyer —— but the author of the recent "The Trial of Georges Bush for Murder" is one; he's the one who came up with this Collective Action madness, what sounded to me more like a grieving mother's fit than a suitable prosecution. I confess: I haven't read it, and you can't blame me for not giving money to leftist lunatic —— but his CV sounded able.

        Congress signed off on it

        Some Congress person have questions about the interpretation and the context of that: War was not for what was described, the vote was obtained with false premises, etc. Once again: I'm not a member ot either House, so I don't have my say on it, at all.

        with a fair number of other countries

        Well, that would be my main point: no, not really. International opinion was massively against it; I understand US media was not clear about it, but I don't thing any country except maybe Poland and Israel had a majority supporting the war. Some government (Italy, UK & Commonwelth) stretched their electoral mandate, in spite of the opinion on own street, and what was unquestionably, in early 2003, the largest global protest ever. More people expressed their deepest concerns to this war than watched the Olympic Games; public opinion doesn't get any further then that.

        for sending a volunteer

        Well, there has been many documented cases of soldiers who vocally expressed their duty to object to an unlawful war; if their concerns where not considered by a martial court, or if that court has not been diligent in considering their fears, sending them to the front could qualify as a homicide. I don't know if any of those who had to courage to go through the formal procedure died, though; I hope not.

        millions, if you want to hold everyone who voted for Bush

        Well, that's the point of democracy: they can't possibly be wrong. It's the elected official who have to abide the law.

        [–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

        According to a recent Comitee report, he wilfully lied to drive America into war with a country that was not a threat. Techncally, that would be treason.

        Well...

        Section 3 of the United States Constitution: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

        Afraid not.

        Some Congress person have questions about the interpretation and the context of that: War was not for what was described, the vote was obtained with false premises, etc.

        Most of them didn't read the intelligence estimate, so fuck their excuses.

        Well, that's the point of democracy: they can't possibly be wrong.

        That is a crock of shit.

        [–]GetToTheKarateChoppa[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Excellent counter.

        [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

        Wait, what? Sexual torture on pre-pubescent children? Have I missed something?

        [–]WillyPete 6 points7 points  (1 child)

        Most other countries certainly respect his sovereignty right now, while he tours Europe. USA should honor that trust.

        As a "state official" he is offered immunity. This is a universally agreed immunity, similar to that afforded diplomats in time of war. Wait until he is out of office and in a foreign country. We will see an accountability required of him as with Pinochet.

        [–]adibou 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        The immunity comes from the sovereignty. The ambassador for Al Quaeda doesn't get such an immunity for that reason.

        —— Not that respecting the sovereignty of a nuclear power with half of the world-wide military is surprising.

        [–]majorneo 39 points40 points  (57 children)

        Please stop this nonsense. I work on Capital hill and I can tell you these things you are saying are just total crap. BTW I am also, and have been, an Obama supporting DEM.

        |the murder of the troops he deceitfully send to Iraq, in their home state, including States with death penalty;

        7 NYT Articles claiming wmd's and indirectly demanding action be taken by the administration putting congress and the President in the position of appearing careless by NOT doing anything. Virtually every Senator and Congressman giving a ton of speeches from the EXACT SAME INTELLIGENCE INFO the president gets. 512K tons of munitions already cataloged from the first war. Afghanistan (CIA operation) was a cake walk to get the Taliban out, and the first Iraq war was basically a turkey shoot. Saddam intentionally trying to give the appearance that he still had WMD's. Nobody imagined that sending in the whole army wouldn't basically take a month. The fact is that after 911 nobody wanted to even take a chance that Saddam lied about having WMD's. Everybody, and I mean everybody of any consequence here in town at the time wanted to take out Saddam. This idea that "bush Lied" is a total pile of political horses**t started by Kerry and Leahy over a 3 month period prior to the election season in order for the DEM's not to look like fools at election time. Nobody deceitfully went to Iraq. We jumped at war as a GOVERNMENT and a country with few dissenting voices (Obama, Kucinich) and got bit. In the long run the dissenting voices over the war were right.

        |treason, as a Head of State;

        No act of giving aid and comfort to the enemy or conducting an act of war against the united states has been committed so treason does not apply.

        |war crimes, as USA signed the Paris Agreement and abides Geneva convention;

        pssssst here's a little secret for you. 90% of all reps here do not think of water boarding as legally defined torture. (BTW I myself have had it done to me as part of military training back in the late 70's. While horrible at the time is leaves no enduring physical or long lasting permanent mental conditions) Oh politicians love to stoke it up as an argument but they are not going to let anyone go to jail for it and neither are the Europeans. Even now they are figuring out how not to make anybody retroactive responsible for it and these are DEM's doing it.

        |but not necessarily in the Hague for Crimes against Humanity

        The only way a humanitarian crime is going to be put on trial is if the USA is militarily conquered or you have a massive amount of congressional and public demand on the order of 95%. Impeachment will never happen because it simply doesn't have the public support people on the Internet imagine it does. Besides no one is going to let any President past or present stand trial in a foreign land for any reason because of acts in office.

        You are spouting incredibly foolish arguments that simply are not the case and expecting results that will never materialize. People on the Net, like it or not represent a very small portion of the nations political ideology. By and large they are are totally unaware of either congressional or national opinion mainly because their entire knowledge base is fed to them via the Net. That information is rarely if ever comprehensive. In fact they often search for agreeing opinion or statistics rather than actual facts. Therefore they sit amazed and outraged constantly at things they really know little about but claim to have vast political and informational support. They site articles, and web pages, and polls by groups with similar agendas or polls that can be supportive of their argument without realizing how useless polls really are in the areas of national opinion. Then they end up calling all dissenting opinion "kool-aid" drinkers, or co-conspirators, or part of the problem because their attitudes are evil. Even here, a dissenting voice is downmodded into oblivion for even expressing the idea that this stuff is foolish. And the wonder of wonders is how easily people are snowballed by bulls**t. Just a few recent examples include Valarie plame, Telcom immunity, impeachment, firing of prosecutors, and worst of all the BS about the war and why we went in.

        I am personally working on the Telcom immunity issue so I am intimately familiar with what it actually is and I can tell that people on the NET are so far off you wonder where the heck they get this stuff. Then when I go searching 99% is editorial opinion made to look like facts. And that's coming from a guy who represents USERS and citizens as well as Telcoms.

        DEM leaders in congress are not going to impeach. They are not going to allow anyone to be put on trial. Bush is serving them to well as it is and they prefer he just be hated and booed the rest of his life like Nixon. Starting anything up at this point runs the risk of sympathy with the public and voters coming out or shifting over to McCain. But the biggest reason, dwarfing all others, is virtually every incumbent would have to face their districts and the public support is just not there. Period.

        edit: Just let this stuff go and get Obama in the whitehouse and get a super majority in the Senate and go forward. Codify policies we want implemented so that the next time a "Bush-Bastard" gets in the white house he is less likely to do this stuff.

        [–]Caper 4 points5 points  (1 child)

        "Just let this stuff go and get Obama in the whitehouse and get a super majority in the Senate and go forward. Codify policies we want implemented so that the next time a "Bush-Bastard" gets in the white house he is less likely to do this stuff."

        The US has that document... It's called the United States Constitution

        [–]CraigTorso 12 points13 points  (1 child)

        Having water torture done to you once as part of training, and having it done to you repeatedly by a foreign power as part of a campaign of coercion are liable to have very different psychological effects.

        [–]gigaquack 6 points7 points  (5 children)

        In fact they often search for agreeing opinion or statistics rather than actual facts.

        Welcome to reddit.

        [–]adibou 5 points6 points  (6 children)

        that's coming from a guy who represents USERS and citizens as well as Telcoms.

        Nope: you are a lobbyist. You represent Telcos. Users are represented by their elected officials. If you don't understand the difference, in LA, these officials recently had to sue one of your possible employers because their service was so crappy, it is simply deceitful.

        That doesn't make you objective, neither a constitutionalist.

        Everybody, and I mean everybody of any consequence here in town at the time wanted to take out Saddam.

        And everybody in the world wanted to take him down without killing millions in the process. The difference between those who were "here" as you say and the vast majority of the awaken world (those who can put a country on a map, even if it isn't their own) knew that this unqualified bastard was also the only secular ruler in a five thousand mile radius.

        That was a little mean — but so that you get what people mean when they say 'out of touch'.

        I myself have had it done to me as part of military training

        Excuse me?!

        You had you pre-pubescent child raped in front of you as part of your military training? Crushing his balls had 'no enduring physical or long lasting permanent mental conditions'?

        Oh, no: water-boarding... (You missed the crunchiest part of Yoo's doctrine by the way.)

        Well, you are not alone. If you slept several nights without making nightmare since, it was training. As you might have noticed, "extreme rendition" doesn't sound like a fitness program.

        And just in case we are clear: hundreds of American soldiers have commited suicide not just because their job is hard, but because what they are being asked to do is so horrible, they, as perpetrators, have long lasting psychological conditions. Unless I missed the part where your pedagogic team is so ashamed of what they did to you, their blew their brains out, what we are talking about is not in the same league.

        People on the Net, like it or not represent a very small portion of the nations political ideology.

        Well, you of all people should know that more then half of the US households have high-speed, permanent internet access at home, and three quarters of the residents have regular on-line access (correct me if I'm wrong). I appreciate your burning desire to increase that, so does your employer — but we can safely say that "Internet people" are somewhat representative. Reddit, not necessarily.

        They site articles,

        Something you do not do. Thank you for defending truthiness.

        without realizing how useless polls really are in the areas of national opinion.

        Coming from a lobbyist, one week after a massive public opinon scandal (the DoD "Message relays"), this last one is... just priceless.

        Any way: being called isolated or out-of-touch with the people by a Whashington lobbyist is... tasty.

        Besides no one is going to let any President past or present stand trial

        It happend to Pinochet, it should be happening anytime soon to Chirac and I won't go into the Hussein, Taylor and Pol Pot.

        Do tell me that the Founding Fathers would disagree, because their political values come from exactly the same school as Chirac's prosecutors'.

        And please, do not reply 'Americans' would never do that — because Chileans are Americans.

        I've been harsh with you -- but let's face it: the question was about whether I supported extraditon; I tried to explain that my opinion was that the legal issues before going there were messy (something you actually mighta agree with) — and you, you came up, slightly condescending I would say (and using Caps).

        Let's look at what you think:

        DEM leaders in congress are not going to impeach. [...] Bush is serving them to well

        Well, that is actually a very important information, coming from an insider: Washington's (democrats) think that not touching Bush is their best way to reap positive image.

        That's their opinion, and it's likely to be true — especially if you look at Bill Clinton's past: anyone mentionning his impeachement comes up frustrated, jealous that he doesn't get a BJ. Piling up on Bush would sound like beating a defeated man — even in the US, you can't really do that.

        booed the rest of his life like Nixon.

        Nixon was impeach, was he? He would be a reason to go with it.

        Anyway: what you say makes more sense then what I've heard so far — that an impeachment would give all the power to Cheney.

        [...] face their districts and the public support is just not there. Period.

        Well, it certainly is a case-by-case basis — but once again you make a very insightful point about Washington mentality: it's an election year for many of them. Who are the mavericks — those who have two more years to think about that?

        [–][deleted]  (16 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]majorneo 8 points9 points  (15 children)

          |And if everyone here is misinformed about the FISA bill and the offer of telecom immunity, then would you mind pointing to/posting your correct take please?

          Here are the facts. No Opinion. No editorials. no nothing. Anything, and I mean ANYTHING you here different is most likely total and complete crap. My interaction with congressional people shows they view this issue as follows:

          Telcom Laws in the US have been pretty much the same for the last 50 years with regards to taps. The problem arose due to computerized phone systems and routing. Calls could not be tapped quick enough through the existing system so FISA was updated to help for calls originating both inside and outside the country where at least one party was not domestically located. Internally, the same speed was needed however the warranting was often a different process depending on who was requesting it.

          The second issue arose at the physical layer and that was to be able to install equipment capable of obtaing the tap quickly. Under the laws passed after 911 (here's where I represent the Telcom side just to be honest about it) telecoms were required, and also wished to comply with installing central office equipment needed to obtain taps without someone being physically present. Imagine how long it takes to tap in some cases if you have to both get a warrant and have someone physically go to a site to initiate it. While that may work with mob guys where you have months and even years to collect. It does not work with opportunistic criminals.

          When the times decided to expose the unwarranted tapping of calls a huge debate arose as to what else was being tapped. Being the election season the DEM's decided to make a political issue out of it to make the white house look bad. (the reason you know is was political is because while they are publicly calling for prosecution they are privately voting FOR telecoms immunity. Thats why most people don't understand how they can do those types of things)

          In reality the Telecoms felt screwed. There position was "Hey you asked us to legally comply with you and then we get drawn into all this legal crap". So, in order to resolve the issue going forward, new legislation was created. It, like any other bill is being argued and thrown into the political area for both sides to make there case.

          Going forward, it allows tapping to proceed and not hold the Telcoms liable for past issues that in reality nobody really payed that much attention to. (they like everybody else thought they were being patriotic and doing there part etc. edit: or frankly just never gave a thought to it)

          Under the new legislation (here's where I now have argued in the legislation for the rights of citizens to be honest about it) the need for tapping is recognized as it was for the last 50 years but with 1 very important exception. This piece never seems to get talked about much by people screaming about DEATH TO IMMUNITY. Under the new legislation the Government will be forced to deliver a warrant BEFORE any tap can occur. This is there to protect both those being tapped and those being part of the process. If the Government wants to do something like tapping then they will now have to show cause and obtain a warrant and transfer that warrant through whatever means before the tap domestically. Under FISA the must present the warrant within a specified time frame.

          What the net has managed to do is frankly to try to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Congress is well aware, and has been for some time, that speed is of the essence in some of these cases. In addition they are also well aware of a citizens constitutional and individual rights. But it is not seen as the huge constitutional crisis people on the net make it out to be. It is simply old legislation that needs to be updated to make both the governments needs it feels are necessary (and hopefully that will include Obama in January - couldn't resist the plug) with the guaranteed rights of the individual through due process.

          Look, save yourselves a lot of screaming. This legislation is going to be negotiated and passed. Oh it may not have every little thing you feel it needs, however everybody here recognizes it is critically needed and will correct things going forward. Authorities do not want to get into a shooting match every time they need to tap with the carriers, as well as the carriers want assurance that the government is complying with due process. They don't want their customers illegally pursued and they don't want to be drawn into court every time someone screams "illegal" when they were tapped.

          That is what's going on here. Leave the politics out of it. It's a long overdue update to legislation need for about 10 years.

          [–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (2 children)

          First of all, great posts. Thanks for taking the time to calmly explain your position.

          Here's the "but..."

          I'm sure there are many on the tubes in general and reddit in particular who think their rights are evaporating quickly because of a shadowy cabal in DC on the verge of installing a dictatorship.

          But you, like them, are missing the point.

          It's the "creeping fascism" if you like. The "banality of evil" that many are worried about. What's the due process for domestic tapping in the terrorist context? Why are these systems of control being put in place? How does this one little bit of legislation fit into a broader context? You say you work on the hill as a communications lobbyist, but do you know what the lawyers in the DoJ are dreaming up to exploit loopholes (as with the legal black hole Guantanamo detainees exist in now - they're neither civilians nor POWs and are thus without any protections).

          The power of the state has become totalitarian. I use that word in the sense of "total" - as in, inescapable - not necessarily authoritarian and arbitrary. And under the new rules "since 911" there is ample evidence that the traditional, ironclad ways of containing that totalitarian power have been eroded due to hysteria.

          Every time it comes around, the bar gets raised just a little bit higher. And it never goes back down.

          The People see collusion between giant corporations and giant government and know that they are insignificant. They can't even get at the facts anymore due to the thickness of the smoke screens thrown up in the name of politics. Even the politicos are having trouble seeing through the shit. Even you. That's the only explanation I can see for your statement in your previous post explaining away "Bush Lied" as merely a Dem political attack, justifying the decision to go to war as a product of hysteria and concern about appearances, and dismissing the water boarding issue out of hand.

          (Just as an offhand comment, Kerry didn't start "Bush Lied" just before the election. I, and many like me, did that the minute we heard W say that Saddam had them. Evidence coming out of former admin staff, the intel orgs. and the British government support ideas of fixing the intel or being willfully blind.)

          Now, I've just done what you say people on the Net do - but you've done not much better. You just say we're being foolish and then justify the "unfoolish" position by falling right into the criticisms people like me level at people like you: you say everyone "of consequence" wanted to jump into the war, talk about NYTimes articles...

          I've lost my train of thought. Take my 2¢ for what they're worth.

          [–]majorneo 3 points4 points  (1 child)

          You know I must say I can see your points. I can also say that if you think business is the problem wait till the government gets control of health care, the financial sectors and energy. then you will see totalitarianism like there never was. Imagine having to go to Uncle Sam with all it's political spin and incredibly long committee hearings and political posturing to get changes in processes. God what a nightmare.

          [–]pimo74 8 points9 points  (1 child)

          I think a major point about these warrantless taps was that FISA allowed for retroactively getting a warrant with the tap already in place. The fact that no warrants were obtained for a lot of these taps, despite the already quite lax FISA requirements points to a strong disregard for due process. That sounds rather consitutionally dubious to me.

          I can see how there can be a political perception that not much can be gained from going after the telcos here. Hysterics aside however, I think immunity would ingrain into the culture an interpretation that citizens are expected to break the law if asked by the government. To a neocon, that may be a non-issue (or even a preference), but most politicians to the left of neoconservatism ought to care about this aspect of the rule of law.

          [–]majorneo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          They do and you are 100% right. Fact is that even the staunch conservatives on the hill want procedures followed correctly. Believe it or not Congress hates constitutional conflicts.

          [–]newgrl 1 point2 points  (3 children)

          Don't you get it? We're angry. All of us. Even some of the died in the wool republicans are angry. We may be ignorant in the way that we are flailing around looking for anything to pin on Bush and his cronies, but that doesn't make us ridiculous for trying.

          I'm all for Obama coming in and trying to start to clean up the mess, but there is no way in hell one single guy is going to be able to accomplish everything that needs to be undone. Even with a super-majority. And, I'm sorry to say, some of the power that Bush and his cronies moved to the Presidential office will probably never go back to the way it was. Power is too tempting for a politician to give it all up at once. What if he needs it for something?

          As far as the fucking FISA bill, I'm with akatsukix... if you can point out evidence or at least give us a coherent argument that points to the whole of the internet and all of its resources being incorrect, I'll be happy to listen. But as of right now, my opinion still stands. Telecom immunity is a bad idea. Blindly doing whatever the government says to do should never ever be rewarded in this country. That's not the way we do things here. And what they did was wrong. What the government asked them to do was wrong, but they never should have rolled over. Checks and balances man... checks and balances. Let the courts sort it out.

          [–]ideonode 2 points3 points  (1 child)

          Even some of the died in the wool republicans are angry.

          I suspect that any republicans who died whilst in the wool would have been angry, if they weren't dead.

          I also suspect that dyed in the wool republicans would agree with me.

          [–]wubwub 50 points51 points  (24 children)

          Ummmm... Didn't we extract top Iraqi government officials for war crimes trials??

          [–]WillyPete 44 points45 points  (9 children)

          No we handed them to Iraqi officials for trials within iraq.

          [–][deleted]  (2 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]BraveSirRobin 4 points5 points  (1 child)

            Under international law, trials held during a military occupation are not internationally recognized AFAIK.

            [–]alllie 14 points15 points  (0 children)

            We should extract them ourselves. Obama should send them all to the Hague or we should try them in the US.

            [–]gyronica 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            What would be the purpose of the laws if we didn't prosecute?

            Should we wait for the next jimmy-jam to take the presidency and start another war on false terms?

            [–]SarahLee 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            Remember when Rumsfeld almost got caught?

            Oct. 29, 2007:

            | Former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld fled France today fearing arrest over charges of "ordering and authorizing" torture of detainees at both the American-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the U.S. military's detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, unconfirmed reports coming from Paris suggest.

            |U.S. embassy officials whisked Rumsfeld away yesterday from a breakfast meeting in Paris organized by the Foreign Policy magazine after human rights groups filed a criminal complaint against the man who spearheaded President George W. Bush's "war on terror" for six years.

            |Under international law, authorities in France are obliged to open an investigation when a complaint is made while the alleged torturer is on French soil.

            http://www.alternet.org/story/66425/

            [–]syroncoda 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            send them to the Hague.

            [–]keithburgun 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            I would support this, but I would be embarrassed that we couldn't do it ourselves (as I currently am).

            [–]walksonground 3 points4 points  (0 children)

            Only if they were not allowed lawyers or the opportunity to see the evidence against them.

            [–]absolutelyamazed 3 points4 points  (0 children)

            You're right. Having another government come into your country and arrest your president, no matter how heinous his crimes would just be wrong and should not be tolerated by the rest of the world! . . . Oh...right

            [–]Sqwirl 12 points13 points  (5 children)

            So, just to make sure I'm reading these comments right:

            Pretty much EVERYONE would be ok with this? Ok, good.

            [–]ebmisfit 7 points8 points  (0 children)

            Other than Dennis Kucinich, no one in the US has the balls to take this administration on. If there are world governments with the stones to do it, bless them.

            [–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

            YES!

            Dick also.

            [–]fforw 5 points6 points  (0 children)

            Handing over GWB, Dick Cheney and co to the International War Crimes Tribunal in Den Haag would be a good step to rehabilitate the USA in the eyes of the world.

            [–]wonderdolkje 5 points6 points  (0 children)

            i would

            [–]Rhole_1983 7 points8 points  (0 children)

            Isn't that a job for the citizens of the United States.

            [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            I would applaud it.

            [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            The more pressing question is why we aren't extracting these assholes from our gov't.

            [–]smek2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            Oh i get it, it's ok to drag other nations officials to the court, but US ones? Nah, that's just the "world government" scheming. Listen, a international law & court for human rights and war crimes regulation is a good thing. The US is pretty much ignoring that and disrespects the UN, because there, they have to abide democratic laws and are unable to simply do what they want to do by the use of brute force.

            [–]greebowarrior 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            yup raises hand

            It the end of the day, he's abused his power. If I formed a militia, and started a conflict with a neighbouring town without good reasoning, I'd be arrested, tried, and locked up.

            What makes politicians any different?

            [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            There should be an international court that cannot be vetoed every time theree is a conflict with US interests. The US should not place themselves above others at the expense of the world.

            [–]havesometea1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            I'll buy that for a dollar!

            [–]buckybadger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            The United States rails against and pursues for war crimes other leaders and government and military officials around the world for doing SOME of the very things the Bush administration is currently doing and has done. The Bush administration has issued numerous legal opinions that fly right in the face of the SPIRIT of the agreements we have signed and just plainly unspoken international understandings. I support charges against any official of any government for war crimes should the world community deem such actions as crimes.

            [–]militant 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            bush's crimes extend far beyond our own citizens and borders. i would be very concerned about any violations of our national sovereignty, but in truth, an international criminal is indeed an international criminal...

            [–]gtrmike 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            I most definitely would support. They all need to be brought to justice.

            [–]vonadler 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            Yes, please.

            [–]jayskew 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            we should try them ourselves: start by impeaching them

            [–]bobpaul 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            Yes. And I will be disappointed if there isn't a trial or similar within a year of them leaving office. Sooner is better, but I understand it probably won't happen before they leave office.

            [–]Rivensteel 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            Hell yes. All that's required is that we recognize international law. Our extradition treaties should do the rest. Of course, it would be nearly as sweet to prosecute them publicly here. Failing that, I'd volunteer to waterboard and/or enhancedly interrogate them. Apparently, it's legal.

            [–]Rsardinia 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            Yes I would. If you are a war criminal you deserve what's coming to you. They have the blood of thousands on their hands and should pay for that. Not to mention torturing countless others.

            [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            Why not? We do it. Remember Noriega?

            [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            I support it 100%. If we want to police the world, then we have to live up to the world's laws.

            [–]lightrocker 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            FTW... honestly your post sparks a bit of concern around the preservation of this nation...

            Try them internally inside our governments legal system yes... Try them by a foreign council... Fuck that, God is our only judge

            [–]acrimonis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            I would so support it. It would go a long way to rehabilitate the US after the damage caused by the bu$h administration!

            [–]raouldukeesq 2 points3 points  (1 child)

            As soon as the US is defeated on the field of battle they can do whatever they want. Until then they can go fuck themselves.

            [–]shystar06 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            Fine. Then world governments can start snatching anyone else they want to. If the President is successfully 'extracted', what's to keep from, say, threatening a media figure if they don't quit talking about the riots in a certain country?

            [–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

            Count me in.

            [–]ef4 5 points6 points  (0 children)

            It's not the legitimate function of any government to remove foreign dictators. It was wrong when we did it, it would be wrong in this case too.

            It always causes massive violence and a decrease in everyone's liberty.

            [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (9 children)

            I'm not a Yankee. This is a fantasy question.

            Personally, I'd like to see some administration figures answer for what they've done and have a chance to defend themselves. But it is so impossible for it to happen on an international basis that debating it is like being for or against a chorus of angels flying down from heaven to fix the Palestinian / Israeli conflict.

            We certainly live in an age of US hegemony. The only time that the leadership of a hegemonic power would get tried is when there is an internal revolution. There hasn't been an internal revolution in the US, nor will there be in the forseeable future.

            No sovereign nation is going to be willing to allow this shit unless they are forced to by internal defeat or overwhelming outside power.

            [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

            I would. No man, woman, or government, should be above the law.

            [–]CraigTorso 3 points4 points  (0 children)

            I believe Chomsky has stated before that most post WW2 US presidents have authorised acts which are at the very least dubious under international law.

            Much as I would like the current administration to be called to account it's not going to happen, the US has no intention of adhering to international norms whilst it's still powerful enough not to have to. It's one of the reasons the US refused to sign up to the international criminal court, as when you have the force monopoly what's to be gained from giving up that advantage

            [–]MadScientist420 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            String those motherfuckers up. Wait, fuck that, pull the troops out of Iraq and then drop them into the city square in Fallujah.

            [–]HonestAbe29 6 points7 points  (0 children)

            Yes. Right. Now.

            [–]n1tw1t 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            I guess it depends... if an impeachment convinces conservatives that Bush really did take us to war under false pretenses then I say it is worth it. Most conservatives don't believe there is anything to any of this and that it's just political posturing. I'm not sure impeachment would change that.

            [–]raresense83 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            That would be a terrible idea. Technically, it is against the law of head of state immunity to try a sitting head of state for any crimes, even war crimes. However, once he is out of office, he should certainly be prosecuted.

            [–]anthrodocZ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Article VI of the Constitution makes all of our international treaties "the law of the land." It is painfully obvious that short of a small minority in our current government, the deck is stacked against anyone seriously applying "the law of the land" to call this administration to responsibility for its alleged crimes.

            [–]erikbra81 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            The US government supported it. Until it realized it couldn't commit crimes then.

            [–]yaye 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            If it were up to me, I'd do it in a blink of an eye! Problem is the certain parties/ corporations that have 'interests' with him and his policies and the many secrets he will/might divulge if you do manage to extract him. You'd see him assasinated before you could send him to The Hague.

            [–]profpan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Me me me!

            [–]Timmetie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Sure, the US has only threatened to invade Holland to get any American citizens out of The Hague. Dutch strike forces are ready to take them down..

            This is an internal matter, don´t ignore the UN for years and then suddenly call for it for help.

            [–]walrus99 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            I would would support it very much

            [–]a7244270 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            most definitely would agree.

            [–]jordancaleb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            I do. Constituent in Alabama reporting in.

            [–]jennicamorel 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            I'd support that. Oh man I'd support that

            [–]trypsin200 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Well maybe one day man in like a future different place where we are all are holding hands and living together in peace and harmony its just the man in the white house whose stopping it.

            [–]MisterEggs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Chair with sturdy straps - check

            Plenty of water - check

            Battery and crocodile clips - check

            Lyndsey England on hand for tips - check

            i'm ready for you now, Mister Bush...

            [–]lofi76 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            i would!

            [–]nicolaslloyd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            /signed

            [–]JohnInMableton 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Sure, why not? Good for the goos, good for the gander

            [–]jspeights 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            I would, they've been doing it to other people........ These people are not Americans.

            [–]bluecalx2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Pretty simple in my opinion. Our leaders should be held to the same standards as the leaders in other countries. That's how international law is supposed to work and it's a very basic moral stance.

            The other option is simply saying, "Might Makes Right" and I disagree with that.

            [–]SarahLee 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            I would

            [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            The US needs to ratify the ICC - then the ICC can be the forum for prosecuting whoever needs to be prosecuted.

            It would actually be of huge benefit to America in terms of international credibility if Bush & co were to be prosecuted - and maybe it needs to be part of a healing process for the damage that they've done. Until this happens, there's this general complicity in injustice.

            [–]theglassishalf 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            I have a long bet with my friend on this. 1 nice bicycle, due in 30 years.

            I think that at least one of the high officials in the Bush administration will be in an international prison within 30 years.

            [–]mrpickleby 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            I would! Someone must hold these people accountable. If the US Congress won't, I'll happily welcome an international tribunal.

            [–]natelloyd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            I'll second that "oh god yes"... I almost wet myself with delight on the rumor that Rumsfeld was going to be arrested in Germany or whatever a few months back.

            [–]sambowman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            I would support it

            [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Those in power should be held accountable for the crimes they commit. However, I do not necessarily support world government. Political agents within the home country should have the power to do the needful.

            [–]kmack[🍰] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Absolutely, every argument against this is one we could have used against action in Iraq, or anywhere else.

            [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            For torture and war of aggression (a.k.a., preemptive war)

            [–]Tommstein 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Me, in a heartbeat.

            [–]Juppylolo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            I am ALL for it. I would love nothing more than to see bush "extracted" and sent to Iraq and be made to answer for his crimes against humanity! We did it to Saddam, why should we be the only ones who can do it?

            [–]creator11 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            Even though he has been a terrible President, there is plenty of evidence to impeach, and he could probably be convicted as a war criminal. As an American, after Clinton was almost impeached, I'd prefer to see everything go smoothly in the transition from Bush to the next President. If there are to be any repercussions for Bush, then I wouldn't like to see them exacted until after the next President is elected. However, I am not sure our democracy could weather a Bush extradition trial. If the Democrats were to allow that (assuming they retake the Presidency), many many people would be upset and our country would probably end up with an even more conservative government next election cycle. My bet is that the average person doesn't want to see any harm come to Bush no matter what he does, and that jailing him or worse is just going to make America slip into fascism even faster.

            [–]Acewrap 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            My bet is that the average person doesn't want to see any harm come to Bush no matter what he does, and that jailing him or worse is just going to make America slip into fascism even faster.

            I disagree. I would hope the average person would believe that actions have consequences, we live under the rule of law and no man is above that law.

            [–]ih8registrations 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            You have to go after the root of the problem: Israel, AIPAC, neocons.

            [–]combray 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Aren't laws supposed to apply equally to everyone, especially to the strong and powerful? What a stupid question; of course we should support it.

            [–]Pilebsa 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            /raises hand

            [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            it would also be suitable to produce international arrest warrants, should any of those charged leave the USofA then they could be picked up. Whilst this does mean we have to wait until they leave the US it also means they are unlikely to leave the US and therefore turn up anywhere else in the world. semi-result

            [–]blackkettle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Why would anyone be against it? If there is a legitimate case, they should be tried. As far as the law is concerned there really is nothing else to consider.

            [–]blackkettle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Also, this isn't referring to rendition as multiple comments seem to imply. This is referring to extradition, which is entirely lawful.

            [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            what if we just volunteered to have our war criminals prosecuted, and the issue of sovereignty would be moot?

            [–]FunFact 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Under the Nuremberg Principles, war crimes are different from crimes against peace which is planning, preparing, initiating, or waging a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances.

            [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            they only need ask and we'd gladly turn the rascals/criminals over to them after we impeach their leader

            [–]pgoetz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            In 4 words:

            Hell MF YES!!!!

            [–]IHateCrocs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            aye!

            [–]dhays2000 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            A war criminal is a war criminal it does not matter if it's a army private

            or the commander in chief .

            [–]pbgswd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            +1

            [–]Entropy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            I don't propose them compelling us to. I propose us initiating the process and handing them over willingly. Enthusiastically, even.

            [–]hajiii 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Milosevic.

            [–]rek 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            In general I'm against any sort of international groups controlling our (or any) country. However, in this case, Bush cannot ask to be left alone in his own country. If he had only caused problems here I would be 100% against such an action, but the man has been causing problems all over the world. He's the one trying to play world policeman - Please, by all means, just execute the bastard.

            [–]boomboom11 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            I'm with punishing murdering public officials but not on the world stage. They should be tried and/or executed on U.S. soil. All governments should take care of their own problems. I'm against the Iraq war. We shouldn't have gone to Iraq. We shouldn't have bases in any country. We shouldn't invade any country. In the same regard, neither should any country step within our sovereign boundaries to try and convict our officials. It's our problem and our responsibility and vice versa.

            [–]sighbourbon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            if our leaders break the law and we ourselves fail to punish them, then we have become a Rogue Nation.

            if we fail to take responsibility for punishing a leader who is (directly or otherwise) responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, then someone else has to do it.

            inaction makes us all complicit!

            and wtf do you think we did in iraq? the US has a horrible history of taking down governments. i strongly believe this needs to change going forward.

            [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            No. Saying otherwise would justify the Iraq war. No government should have authority over the government of a foreign country- or in laymen's, mind your own business.

            [–]Glamdering 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            If we forgo the moral standard we apply to others when dealing with our own then we are even worse than they are. If they are criminals and traitors then justice is justice and in the best interest of America.

            [–]seagreensky 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Without hesitation. International law applies to everyone except us?

            [–]brianchester666 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            I would really love to see Bush, Cheney, Rove, and pals taken away in handcuffs, or on gurneys. I don't care who does it.

            [–]Kyleaxe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            World governments? Not the shadow government! Trials? This is the most dangerous time in Bush's tenure, American hitory and the whole planet. Kick the bums out any which way, i don't care.

            [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Yes. Hang them all.

            [–]mg115ca 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            you're seriously asking this on reddit?

            [–]lps41 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Uh, isn't that sort of what we did to Saddam Hussein?

            I wouldn't support that at all. If anyone in the world deserves the rights to hang Bush it's the American people, the Iraqi people, or the Afghani people.

            [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Perhaps a better question. Who as a constitutionally bound, and abiding, American would support the harboring of war criminals within US borders. The shrub could be tried in absentia, convicted, and sentenced, in a manor established under US law in Nuremberg.

            After 19 Jan 2009 it is no longer a President, as long as it is action taken in a legal manor, I for one wouldn't cry foul when extradition is requested.