Saddam Hussein arrested

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Kramerman


why do people ALWAYS make such a big deal of this? Friends and enemies change with time and circumstance, duh - plain and simple. GET OVER IT

(and im not yelling at you Mr.Fun, im just yelling in general )

Because I find that the dictatorships United States installed in other countries is something that I believe is not necessary for our foreign policy.

I'm not sure how many millions of people have died under the rule of dictotors who are puppets of United States from the Cold War, up to today.

[Drake Tungsten]

Because I find that the dictatorships United States installed in other countries is something that I believe is not necessary for our foreign policy.

America didn't install Hussein.

[MrFun]

No, we didn't but nevertheless we slept in the same bed with him after he rose to power.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Tell us, Agathon, just how many strong men has the US installed since the end of the Cold War, and how many has it taken down or helped to take down?

It might be useful to stop living in the past.

If you are going to blame the cold war, try how many "interventions" there were before 1918.

And - "installed"; "actively supported" - what's the difference?

AFAIK and it is not proven - they had a hand in trying to get rid of Chavez in Venezuela.

other than that - pick from this list (some are debatable):

The "regime" in Colombia.
That ******* who got thrown out of Bolivia.
Saddam Hussein (if the CW ended in 1989)
Musharraf.
Hamed Karzai (although he's not that strong and not that bad AFAIK).
That ***** in the Phillipines.
The Saudi Royal Family.
Kings Hussein and Abdullah of Jordan.
Mubarak.
Putin (democrat my ass!).
That ****er Fujimori (you know the torturer and mass sterilizer).
Suharto, the fascist butcher of Indonesia (although he lost support for not doing what he was told).

I don't know about that former nutcase in the Congo (Kabila, not Mobutu).

How's that?

[Cyclotron]

We installed Putin? That's a new one to me.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Because I find that the dictatorships United States installed in other countries is something that I believe is not necessary for our foreign policy.

America didn't install Hussein.

Did, or at least provide substantial assistance for a long period of time.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
We installed Putin? That's a new one to me.

You could at least have read the whole post.

I quote:

"installed"; "actively supported" - what's the difference?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why did you change the subject of my statement to anwser a different question?

I didn't. 'War crimes' is not part of the original jurisdiction of the SCOTUS set out by the Constitution. In fact it is very limited, just to certain cases. Everything else the SCOTUS has appelate jurisdiction, and Congress can take that away.

the question is do US lower courts have subject matter jurisdiction to hear criminal trials for violation of international treaties on the laws of war, etc., without an act of Congress.

Yes. As stated, international law is considered federal common law (see Bergman v. De Sieyes). Therefore, US courts have subject matter jurisdiction on international law issues where the US has jurisdiction.

As stated in the Paquete Habana: "International Law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. For this purpose, where there is no treaty and controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations..." (175 US at 700).

Of course customary international law can be trumped by later statutes or treaties (and is under the Constitution, always).

if the war crimes tribunal was set up by Congress, the Supremes could have reviewed it

Only for habeas concerns. Military tribunal decisions are usually not reviewable by the Supreme Court for anything else.

AFAIK, no international treaty is self-executing in the US.

COMPLETELY incorrect. Read Foster and Elam v. Neilson, where court decided part of the treaty was self-executing while another part was not. So yes, some international treaties are self-executing in the US.

In this case, the Supremes state they have limited jurisdiction to review such cases under habeas corpus.

As stated, yes. Because tribunals are under a different organization than Federal Courts. The Supremes can only review whether they follow the Constitution (which means, basically, only a habeaus review).


Ned, you are incorrect on these things. I just took a final on this stuff. Just accept it .

[DaShi]

I see we've reached the bash America part of the thread now. Certain posters now feel safe to post here.

[MrFun]

I'm not bashing my own country just for the sake of bashing -- forgive me if I have a consciousness that I get angry over American-backed dictatorships who have murdered millions of people.

[DaShi]

I think we were all angry at Saddam.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Agathon
You could at least have read the whole post.

So anybody we get along with on occasion is essentially someone we installed? I'm having trouble making that particular logic jump.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon


If you are going to blame the cold war, try how many "interventions" there were before 1918.

And - "installed"; "actively supported" - what's the difference?

AFAIK and it is not proven - they had a hand in trying to get rid of Chavez in Venezuela.

other than that - pick from this list (some are debatable):

The "regime" in Colombia.
That ******* who got thrown out of Bolivia.
Saddam Hussein (if the CW ended in 1989)
Musharraf.
Hamed Karzai (although he's not that strong and not that bad AFAIK).
That ***** in the Phillipines.
The Saudi Royal Family.
Kings Hussein and Abdullah of Jordan.
Mubarak.
Putin (democrat my ass!).
That ****er Fujimori (you know the torturer and mass sterilizer).
Suharto, the fascist butcher of Indonesia (although he lost support for not doing what he was told).

I don't know about that former nutcase in the Congo (Kabila, not Mobutu).

How's that?

Total bullshit, as usual. How many came to power after 1990, and how many can be hung on American backed coups? I asked, how many strong men installed by the US. You have failed to answer the question.

Oh, and btw, when trying to exert influence in a region, you might have to do business with the people who are there. Which would you prefer? They accept the people in power and deal with them, or they don't and install their own people? You can't criticise the US for accepting local potentates AND critcise them for installing their own, can you?

As far as pre 1918, get your head out of your ass and start looking at how the whole world acted back then, at least the Empire you and I both come from, not to mention the other Europeans.

Oh, and btw, some of the tossers you mention were ELECTED by the people in their own countries. How the hell are you going to hang that on the CIA? Oh yeah, I know already, I guess they exported the chad issue before pulling it at home, right?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon


And - "installed"; "actively supported" - what's the difference?

it makes a big difference in reality and in perception to the common man. I think this is why the left commonly equates the two so as to imply that United States actually installed all the dictators of the world.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Ned, you are incorrect on these things. I just took a final on this stuff. Just accept it .

Well report back, Professor Imran, whether you passed.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm pretty sure I did. After all I've been working in school with international law well before this.

And many of the case cites and answers I gave in my last post come from class texts and notes.

[notyoueither]

Agathon, you even mention the freakin' Philipines. You know, the People Power revolution and all that. You know, the reason the Yanks aren't anchored at Subic Bay anymore?

Do you know which way is North without a compass and a hand on your shoulder?

[Ned]

Well I looks like Kofi Annan is really poking his nose into to this issue. He's now said the Saddam war crimes trials cannot include the death penalty to the extent that they be sanctioned by the UN!

"Annan stressed that any trial for Saddam must meet international standards and he reiterated the United Nations' longstanding opposition to the death penalty in any U.N.-sanctioned tribunal.

"As secretary-general, as the U.N., as an organization, we are not going to now turn around and support the death penalty," he said.


The secretary-general said he had not studied the Iraqi Governing Council's plans for a court to try members of Saddam's regime so he couldn't say whether it would meet international standards. If it doesn't, he said, the Iraqis could consider asking for outside help."

http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D7VFAPI80.html

The last two days seem to me that both Joe Lieberman and George Bush were quite insistent that the death penalty be on the table. I'm quite sure that the Iraqis themselves want to put Saddam to death and may be quite a bit bothered by having to go through the formalities of trial.

We are headed to a confrontation.

[MrFun]

If we execute Saddam, that will be providing another martyr for the damn Iraqi terrorists.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If we execute Saddam

Where does 'we' come into it. If it is a public and open Iraqi trial, Saddam's execution won't nearly provide as many flames.

[MrFun]

Assuming Bush doesn't break his promise -- he IS a politician.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[MrFun]

Sorry to have bored you by waking you up from your naivity.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And you complain about Bush-bashers .

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Ned


This is not a throwaway issue. The Iranians want to bring a charge against US (Rumsfeld?) in a proper forum. If we do not provide an international forum for the Iranian charge, you can just hear the Bush critics yell

HIPOCRISY!

this is getting ****in rediculous. we could just as easily bring charges against the iranians for what they did to iraqies. it was a ****ing war. people get ****ed on both sides. you have to live with it.

international law is a joke. people are just exploiting it. ill support it when everyone agrees to stand by an official, unambiguous, and functional system. until then international law is just another method of passive-agressive exploitation and i prefer the law of the jungle to that, thank you very much.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Agathon




You've given two cases. Do you really want me to supply the long list of US puppet dictators.... ....?

you are mixing apples and oranges... US supported puppet dictators were many (and understandablly so in most cases, we had to to protect our security first and formost, ideals come second to that. but we wont turn this into another one of those threads).

US dictators that were actually propped up after US occupation? very very few

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Total bullshit, as usual. How many came to power after 1990, and how many can be hung on American backed coups? I asked, how many strong men installed by the US. You have failed to answer the question.

Oh, and btw, when trying to exert influence in a region, you might have to do business with the people who are there. Which would you prefer? They accept the people in power and deal with them, or they don't and install their own people? You can't criticise the US for accepting local potentates AND critcise them for installing their own, can you?

As far as pre 1918, get your head out of your ass and start looking at how the whole world acted back then, at least the Empire you and I both come from, not to mention the other Europeans.

Oh, and btw, some of the tossers you mention were ELECTED by the people in their own countries. How the hell are you going to hang that on the CIA? Oh yeah, I know already, I guess they exported the chad issue before pulling it at home, right?

NYE, dont bother, he doesnt understand reality and the fact that a free nation has to what it has to do to make sure it can preserve its way of life.

[Drake Tungsten]

And - "installed"; "actively supported" - what's the difference?

Well, they do mean two completely different things...

Did, or at least provide substantial assistance for a long period of time.

Seems UR doesn't understand the difference either. At least he has an excuse, though, being a non-native speaker of English.

[Imran Siddiqui]

international law is just another method of passive-agressive exploitation and i prefer the law of the jungle to that, thank you very much.

No you don't . International law is extrodinarily important in the world today. Without that much of contract law would be unneccesarily tedious. And there is an one system, but there is no enforcement of it, except by the ICJ (when asked) and states. Treaties are pretty official and functional, wouldn't you think?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by MrFun


Because I find that the dictatorships United States installed in other countries is something that I believe is not necessary for our foreign policy.

I'm not sure how many millions of people have died under the rule of dictotors who are puppets of United States from the Cold War, up to today.

c'mon, we live in a jungle. the US as well as other free nations have to continually fight in one way or another to preserve their way of life. often that means they have to do things they arent proud of, but none the less things they believe must be done to ensure our security. THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN FROM ANY OTHER NATION IN HISTORY. likewise our enemies do things to ensure their survival. we may deem each others deeds as evil, but its all perspective. but im a moral reletivist, so thats what you get