trial. He should have been tried along with him, imo, for enabling him during his reign of terror by investing in his ill-gotten fortune at the expense of his people.

They also don't do a single thing to prevent war crimes.

If we're going to do nothing, it's vital that we be honest that we're doing nothing and be ready to defend doing nothing.

Doing nothing is the proper approach, the overwhelming majority of Americans and the world agree. No sense in pretending otherwise.

I'll bet they would have gone along.

Unfortunately, an honest investigation seems like the LAST thing we want.

They simply don't give a fuck. Might as well talk about the issue to a brick wall.

we went about this in an idiotic manner.

IF, however, it was a false flag attack and we knew it, then we've been playing a losing hand brilliantly.

What did we do about Saddam in 1988?

We rewarded his use of poison gas.

So, doing nothing is actually an improvement over past policy.

As I've said, so what if he gassed his own people including children? So what if he does it again? We have no positive role to play there.

Yeah yeah, it's morally outrageous etc etc. Moral outrage and $5 gets you a coffee at Starbucks.

We HELPED Saddam use the nerve gas.
We told him WHERE and WHEN to use it against the Iranians.
We are accomplices.

accountable, we will have the moral authority to go after CHINA's and RUSSIA's and EVERYONE ELSE's. We might even stop looking the other way FROM China's human rights abuses so we can use their cheap labor for our Corporations to profit from.

We DID look away from Tiananmen Square in exchange for Corporate Deals.

Too bad we didn't use our clout back then and tell them to take their Business deals and shove them until they stopped abusing their own people.

But we didn't. So we became complicit.

However we can always start all over and begin the process to deal with all of these crimes.

You seem to be saying 'well there are so many it isn't worth bothering with any of them'.

I'm for looking into 'Cold Cases' like Tiananmen Square, like Bush's Iraq Crimes, open up the book again. They are doing in in Latin America. Why not here?

If WE deal with our own War Criminals, then the Hague doesn't have to, but we can go to them with a straight face when see evidence as we are now claiming, of crimes somewhere else.

The leaders in this country cannot afford to do that. We have our own enablers and protectors of war criminals in high places in the current administration.

Too many people cannot imagine cooperation with other countries, instead of treating as adversaries, as we do now. They have lost sight of the fact that we are a social species and do best when we cooperate. The United States is no better than Russia or China in how we treat those that we come in contract with and in some cases, in our history, worse.

absolute certainty that victims of crimes NEED justice in order to begin the process of trying to get back their lives to whatever extent is possible.

I guess we should just abandon our judicial system entirely.

Who needs it?

NOT those who might be hiding something. That's for sure.

The ICC is a mechanism for defeated leaders of small countries to be put on trial for public relations purposes.

You think the Chinese petroleum companies that bankrolled the Darfur atrocities will ever see the inside of an ICC courtroom?

Thanks for nothing.

don't contribute any real understanding.

There is no law without someone to enforce the law.

International law is aspirational, not mandatory, as it currently exists.

Every enforcement of 'international law' is an act of politics, not law.

The UN and International law are merely instruments for states to try to achieve their political goals in any event. Some true believer transnational bureaucrats and academics may think it's more meaningful than that, but it's not.

Do tell.

US aggression has always been right, lawful, atrocity and war crime free... No other states could possibly have a legitimate beef with us, therefore we have nothing to fear from their retaliation.

That is their right, as a sovereign. But, do not wound The Prince.

their crimes, he just thought it would 'be better for the nation to move forward' from them.

So having the right doesn't make it happen. This country has honored its War Criminals. So what now? Several other venues with jurisdiction on Bush's war crimes, have begun proceedings against them. But the US, we found from the Wikileaks leaks, THIS administration, actively pressured them NOT TO DO SO.

Those cases are still open but so far, have not gone forward. And what a shame that victims had to go to another country to try to get justice, only to have the long arm of the US once again foil their efforts, for now.

other than the current, self appointed, moral arbiters who are demanding we deal with one, alleged, not proven, war criminal, with BOMBS, not Justice.

Why has the US been pressuring courts not to prosecute War Criminals and smearing the International Court and some of its most respected justices?

These things are all being exposed over the past few years, thanks mainly to heroic Whistle Blowers and the World is sitting up and taking note of our blatant hypocrisy.

The Judicial System exists. And now that we know it is being undermined, we know why some of the World's Worst War Criminals haven't ended up there. Yet!

were about to commit war crimes and was taking precautions to protect themselves from the ICC.

rest of the planet.

being held accountable for the war crimes he knew they were about to commit.

withdrew from the ICC, imho, to cover his and his henchman's/puppeteer's asses.

it as a very bad sign of things to come. And those things came about, sadly.

actually, they do about the same: Not a fucking thing, except the kangaroo court is useful to make a few observers happy. Ask the Kurds who lost their families to Saddam Hussein after his show trial two decades later, I'm sure it brought all their loved ones back.

My point is exactly that.

Now it's time to UTILIZE these tools against ALL war criminals since the world is finally rejecting our preferred method of bombing country after country and accomplishing nothing to stop the violence and war crimes. Which, in case you haven't noticed, are continuing in Iraq, the reason why Bradley Manning did what he did, he WITNESSED those war crimes, SEVEN YEARS AFTER our so-called 'solution'.

So now it appears the rest of the world is more than willing to take War Criminals to Court and let the evidence determine guilt or innocence. I fail to see how bombs have ever done that.

As we are.

talk of putting Assad on trial is purely masturbatory. if we're not going to do anything to stop him from using poison gas against civilians, we're not going to do anything to depose him from power and put him on trial.

China's leaders are never going to be put on international trial. Neither will Putin be, nor Assad, nor the Ayatollahs in Iran, nor will Cheney, Bush, or Kissinger, or the Saudi royal family, nor the rebels in Syria.

The only people who go on war crimes trials are those so powerless they can be arrested.

based on irrefutable evidence with dealing with the crime, but NOT WITH BOMBS.

Explain how throwing up Utube Videos, claiming you 'just know, feel confident, it's a judgement call' is any kind of evidence that warrants the Death Penalty for untold numbers of people?

The world is NOT okay with anyone gassing their own people (although we sure didn't mind Saddam doing it and even supplied him with the means) they have not seen any evidence of the claims of the US AND they do not agree with the US's methods which involve, as the World now knows, the use of WMDs which tend to kill more innocent people than the original crime.

No one doubts that Assad's regime has committed gross atrocities, including the kindapping, castration, and murder of school boys.

What are they gonna do about it?

Nothing.

So, the talk of war crimes trials is just that--talk. No one cares about talk.

Idi Amin Dada was a mass murderer writ large. He died, an old man, of natural causes in his sleep in a villa in Saudi Arabia.

I'm in CA. If i go on a murder spree I assure if I die an old man, it will be in a state prison

The difference. In one instance there's a commonly agreed upon sovereign that acts independently. In the other instance there isn't.

their grievances to some venue that has jurisdiction. Eg, many victims of Bush's war crimes have tried to use our Civil Courts to get some justice, but all have failed, the excuse being 'it would harm our National Security'.

So clearly when a country demonstrates an inability to deal with its own war criminals, some other entity needs to step in. Victims need justice and as we have seen in Latin America, they will not stop looking for it no matter how many years go by. In their case, 50 years.

Pinochet also died in his bed, but not because he was not indicted, or wanted by the country in which he committed the War Crimes. He was protected by the Western Powers.

Eg, the same British court that turned down Assange's case re extradition to Sweden based only on allegations, not even actual charges, GRANTED Pinochet's request to refuse the request for HIS extradition on charges of War Crimes.

Most likely because many of our leaders would be prosecuted for war crimes.

The US wants a war crimes court that prosecutes leaders we don't like, and grants immunity to our leaders and those we do like. Having our cake and eating it too. The US has as much blame in a toothless UN as anyone else. We're not exactly saints.

might have to face the music.

That's apparently the will of the world community. Just like the failure to pass immigration reform because of Republican filibustering is the will of the American people.

It's what we should have done after 9/11. We need to cooperate internationally in bringing people to courts and applying laws. And as you say, it includes taking people to the Hague. I had hoped the constitutional law professor would have been interested in this approach. But he seems far more interested in the "judge, jury, and executioner" than in the "law and order" part.

("Our criminal justice system consists of two parts....&quot

Sid

was an American citizen.....and thus could be prosecuted under 18 USC 2441. Sweet Jeebus....

When the US begins to open up its cold cases, shut down in Jan 2009 on our own War Criminals, we can do the prosecuting right here, eliminating the need for the cases to go to an International Court. Then we might have some moral authority to pretend we care about War Crimes. The American people do, but the Government sure doesn't which is why they are being rejected all over the world now as 'the policemen of the world'.

And that is a good thing. It will save many lives if this latest insanity is blocked by wiser heads.

after ignoring international war crimes standards, they weakened it.

If ALL the trillions of dollars went into tracking down and persecuting war criminals, the courts would once again be the deterrent they were meant to be, and this world would be a MUCH better place.

Wow what a dream that would be--as satisfying, healing and world unifying as going to the moon.

who stand to lose the most if their leaders and actions are judged, it's become, sadly, something of a joke.

Really tragic for the hundreds of smaller nations around the world who sign onto it and pin their hopes onto it because they've got nothing else.

continuing to play the role of World Police, while ignoring massive War Crimes in our own back yard.

We could have led the way to a better, more just and safer world. Instead we chose to make it a more violent world, hypocritically claiming to care about 'victims of War Crimes'.

Sounds like a robust system.

"Why have we abandoned it?"

I think you've answered your own question.

As for Mr. Taylor, sounds like he should have cultivated more relationships with global powers...like the rest of world leaders who committed war crimes and were NOT tried did. It's a corrupt and failed justice system, unfortunately.

that. We have interfered with anyone who who has tried to enforce it.

Remember Pinochet? He was indicted for War Crimes and a request to extradite him to his own country to stand trial, was turned down by the SAME BRITISH COURT, despite the actual charges of War Crimes filed against him, that granted an extradition order to Sweden re Assange against whom NO CHARGES have been filed.

Something is very wrong as you, perhaps unintentionally pointed out, with this.

But the tools are there, and it IS being noted around the World how hypocritical the US and its Western allies (who appear to be losing their stomach for our method of applying 'justice') are when it comes to dealing with War Criminals.

So, with this new awareness, and the reluctance of even our some of our allies to join us, that WE have failed to apply the Rule of Law and chose to move forward from war crimes, maybe the International Community can revive the spirit that put together these tools to prosecute war criminals, by holding perhaps an International summit on the subject.

They could highlight the fact that the major War Criminals walk free and something needs to be done about it.

great.

because all their asses would be in jail. Including most living US presidents.

Hence the selective enforcement, the refusal to join the ICC, etc.

That makes his crimes even worse, they pre-meditated, the torture, the use of banned weapons, all of it was planned in advance. The minute we heard he was taking us out of the ICC, it was frighteningly clear what was about to happen.

I remember this came up when Clinton started bombing civilian targets in Serbia for what Milosevic did in Kosovo.

The ICC went into force on July 1, 2002. Bush informed the UN on May 6, 2002 that we were withdrawing as signatories to the Rome treaty and would not be a party to the ICC when it went into effect.

Like Clinton, Bush objected to putting our soldiers, who are in 100 countries, at risk of unchecked prosecution--specifically, to the language that said any State Party could bring charges against any other State Party or its citizens, as could the ICC prosecutor. They wanted all referrals to the ICC to only be made by UN vote, but Clinton and Bush's attempts to limit the prosecutorial discretion of the ICC were unsuccessful. So we withdrew from the Rome treaty before the ICC went into effect. Thus, we were never subject to ICC prosecution.

would have died in The Hague a long time ago.

But we don't, because we're exceptional!

More bombings make more criminals--on and on. Jesus if we never take a breath and hold an occasional trial here and there no one will be left alive at some point.

Of course when people who believe in End Times are running the show, they expect god to take care of justice, so who needs trials, right?

We have a gun. We decide someone is up to no good. We take action unilaterally, even when authorities tell us not to, because "these assholes always get away."

So what "process in place" are you talking about?

I posted a Slate article that talks about why Assad has not been charged with ware crimes. It dropped like a rock. I guess no one gives a shit. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023607384

such as Torture and the use of Banned Weapons he knew they would be committing. A pre-meditated War Crime in action for eight years and still, the US has decided to 'move on' from that particular horror story.

Well, since Gadaffi was indicted, why the US Backed murderers in Libya kill him? That was a horrific war crime but the US has been silent on it. Why, maybe because they were a part of it. Hillary certainly implied that and was instantly condemned by respected people all over the globe.

The US WILL ask for Assad's indictment, so long as he doesn't live long enough to force them into that venue with their evidence.

It's a great system we have going. But it has nothing at all to do with wanting justice for War Crimes. Not a thing and the world knows it.

allegations of brutal war crimes against the 'rebels'.

The US doesn't appear to be interested in the pleas for help from the Kurds eg, or the Christians who are being terrorized and driven from their land, by the 'rebels'.

What that says is that the US cannot be in charge of this.

The allegations from all sides should be taken seriously, especially considering that the evidence against the 'rebels' has been coming to the world's attention for over a year now and is as, if not more, credible than the evidence the US claims to have.

What SHOULD happen is that all sides present their evidence in an International Forum, perhaps the UN Security Council, after which they should WAIT for a thorough investigation to make sure the evidence is credible. This could take time.

This should be done fully in the open for the world to see and all parties should be supportive of the process.

But what has happened so far? The US is not interested in such an investigation of all the allegations. They have admitted there are 'extremists' there, but dismiss them claiming 'we will be careful not to facilitate them'. Excuse me but those extremists are being armed by some of our allies, if not by US.

Which is why we are the least credible entity right now to judge any of this, and least of all, to take any dangerous, vigilante action which thankfully the world is rejecting.

Once the allegations are proven to be correct, indictments should be sought and issued. I already explained in the OP how things proceed from there.

They've already vetoed the strengthening of sanctions against Assad for the over 100,000 civilians he's butchered in the civil war.

The UN Security Council is paralyzed.

taken.

What is your solution? Why is the US unwilling to submit its evidence to review in the Security Council? Are they not confident enough that it proves their case? Or are they worried about the evidence against our 'allies' which is considerable now, with more coming every day, the 'rebels'?

We rushed into Iraq based on what turned out to be, false evidence against the advice of Russia and Chine and at that time, France and Germany, then under different leadership, not to mention all the other voices who tried to warn us.

It is BECAUSE of that 'rush to war' that the Global Community no longer trusts the US. Russia and China turned out to be right back then. The claims were lies.

So, considering all that, why should anyone support Bombing for months to be a solution without real credible evidence and a demand once again that the world 'just trust us', together with the US ignoring War Crimes committed by the Bush war criminal?

Make your case if you can, but I see nothing but disaster written all over this.

I don't think Putin will ever be satisfied with the evidence. Undisputed evidence of Assad butchering over 100,000 civilians has not moved him to approve mere heightened sanctions. And there's still China's veto.

But I am all for going through that exercise, which as I understand it we are doing.

Your OP suggested there is a "process in place" for prosecuting Assad as a war criminal, which the US was ignoring. Your reply posts indicate your OP is incorrect.

identified?

Could you please show us the part of the law that even suggests Bombing as part of the process?

He would be indicted with Russia's support.

Do you support shooting up a neighborhood because there is a murderer living somewhere around the area??

Since when was that part of process of dealing with criminals?

The US IS ignoring the obvious way to prove their case and if they are correct, dealing with the issue according to the law.

As your OP notes, that is the ICC's job. I am not sure what you are trying to say. What process is in place for prosecuting Assad for war crimes?

I truly wish there was such a process. That would be the best way to deal with the situation.

There IS a process in place all the US has to do is use it for once instead of what they usually do, undermine it.

And no, it does not include shooting up the neighborhood.

How did the process work with Taylor? How did he get to the International court?

Taylor got to the Special Court for Sierra Leone (not the ICC; the SCSL was set up specially by the UN with a Security Council resolution) because he lost his war, and went into exile in Nigeria, who sent him to Sierra Leone at the requestion of Johnson-Sirleaf.

So the US 'signed on to' this by getting a special court set up via the Security Council (thus meaning there are vetos involved), and then it depending on Taylor going somewhere willing to send him to the court. Which is fuck all use with Assad in the foreseeable future.

want to.

I have provided a link to the process. If you don't want to read it, I can't help you.

ad hoc "special" courts. http://www.iccnow.org/?mod=icchistory

The US was an initial supporter of the ICC. But the Bush II administration was fatal to the Rome Declaration's being signed by the US.
http://www.amicc.org/usicc/

I'd put the blame mainly on Republican senators, of whom there's probably always been enough to block any signing; but some Democratic senators can be stupid about such things too - look how the Kyoto protocol was unanimously rejected by the Senate.

But since the USA has continued to shun the ICC, then 'special' courts would be the only avenue for the US to seek war crimes trials.

The Special Court for Sierra Leone in The Hague is only mandated to try violations of international and Sierra Leonean law committed in the territory of Sierra Leone between 1996 and 2002.
http://www.sc-sl.org

So yes, I am unaware of the process in place you are referring to with regard to Assad. That is why I keep asking you what it is.

What is it?

I wish there was a process in place. I am sure Obama does too.

with a link to that please?

Your link did not lay out the ICC's jurisdiction. Mine did.

You are wasting my time. It is clear you are just making shit up.

prevented the prosecution of War Criminals over the past decade. You clearly are opposed to any legal process for dealing with War Criminals and are struggling hard to find a way to prevent it.

I read the link. It says nothing about the lack of the ability of the International Community, IF THEY HAVE THE WILL, to prosecute War Criminals. My link points to the ways this can be accomplished.

But one thing is certain, no INDIVIDUAL Country has the right to be judge, jury and executioner. I see nothing anywhere that supports what you support as a solution to how to stop war crimes from occurring.

Our Iraq adventure, where more War Crimes were committed by US over the eight years of Bush's criminal war, from torture to Cluster Bombing to White Phosphorous, to the destruction of hospitals and the massive bombing of civilians, the killing of over a million Iraqis and six thousand of our own troops, has taught the World, that the US way is not acceptable only producing more war crimes than what they claim to have gone to prevent.

There is a process, many processes, to hold War Criminals accountable without bombs. We just don't want to do it.

And as the ICC itself states, they only have jurisdiction over parties to the ICC. That fact is not in dispute. You have been caught in a lie and can't accept it. I can't help you.

criminal they can be prosecuted and have been. But it takes cooperation under the existing laws which the US has been unwilling to provide.

Here, maybe this will help you understand a little better the role of the Security Council with the backing of all nations who actually care about War Crimes and are not using them to get their war machine some new business:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

Even mere increases in sanctions for his butchering over 100,000 civilians, as I have said up the thread. Russia and China are making too much money selling him weapons.

from the G20 Summit saying that the UN wouldn't pass a resolution and even if they did the resolutions don't mean anything because this is a situation which is too immediate and the world's security depends on dealing with the CW situation and the United States is the one that the world looks to when there is a situation that involves a country that could do harm to it's neighbors. (paraphrase)

harm to its neighbors'??? Is he SERIOUS? It gets worse each time they open their mouths. It is now actually SAD to watch them.

The last thing the World is doing is 'looking to the US' who the World regards as the 'biggest threat to World Peace'.

What 'neighbors' is he talking about? OUR bombing campaigns, our illegal invasion of Iraq have caused untold damage to Syria itself with the millions of Iraqi Refugees who they accepted as they fled our Bombs and torture etc. Now those Iraqi refugees have to flee again, having become targets of the 'Rebels'.

It is shameful the lies they tell. Even more shameful, if they actually believe them.

Jordan, already overburdened with refugees from our Iraq War Crime in action, is now facing a new influx from Syria.

Who is harming the 'neighbors' again??? Is it that he doesn't realize we do have access to facts? Or does he really believe all this himself, in which case he should not be in this position imo.

I will see if there's a transcript somewhere. He would not answer whether US would go ahead and bomb if Congress voted it down. Asked by AP and two other Media.

His disdain for the UN was incredible. I had no idea that he thought the UN was ineffectual and that the US was the only super power who had the right to keep the world safe. His view of the American people was that they viewed Syria as "someplace something happened to in way over there" and by the time the UN did their resolutions people would have forgotten about the tragedy of gassing 1400 including little children.
He compared it to how we had to go into WWII... On and on....

still ongoing, to slap down all these arguments with.

He could not be more wrong about the American 'not knowing what is going on in Syria'. It seems to me they know a lot more than he does. Eg, he appears to have no clue about the atrocities committed by his allies over there.

Time to start them video of the brutality against the people that has driven even former anti-Assad protesters, back to the side of Assad.

Who is he listening to?

The criminals are in charge because our capitalist system has embraced profits over human cultural values. They justify cruelty with the rationale that "it's just business". We can try to change leaderships all we want but until we get rid of the underlying system that rewards those most willing to abuse people for personal gain, we will not get the results we want. It's far too easy for them to game the system to their own advantage as it stands right now.

Keep it up!

If the local district attorney had that success record the citizens of his or jurisdiction would be scared to leave their homes.


I'm still waiting for Idi Amin Dada to face justice. He as responsible for the death of my childhood's friend's uncle.

Bush and Cheney both will die of old age and not in a prison cell...EVER. Some animals are more important then other animals, it seems.

assuming he doesn't decide to turn himself him.

Do you have to wait for anything once a criminal has been identified and indicted? That is a very strange question.

If Assad is head of state of Syria, and he's indicted outside Syria, then you have to wait for someone else to hold power and hand him over. Unless you expect him to take a vacation somewhere.

Of course, now that we see that countries will withdraw from the ICC rather than hand over their head of state, we see even more clearly that all this "how to deal with war crimes" applies only to those who lose a war.

And just how is bombing to 'teach him a lesson' going to work? The Administration claims they are not trying to remove him, which would be hard considering he now has the support, thanks to the brutality of OUR allies there, of a majority of the Syrian people. So after we drop all of our WMDs, killing god knows how many more innocent people, what then?

First you investigate, then you indict and file charges, IF the evidence turns out to be credible. It happens all the time, sometimes it takes a while to find a suspect, but generally once they have been charged, there is no doubt they will eventually be detained and tried.

Do you have something against the rule of law?

Do you believe bombing a country on flimsy evidence, without much support around the world or even in your own country is preferable to applying the rule of law?

Maybe if we had made it a habit of applying the rule of law, leaders of every country, including ours, would have been less likely to break the law.

We are at a point where War Criminals have been exonerated, right here in the US, so why should any other leaders feel threatened by the Rule of Law?

Which is why we need to begin to restore the Rule of Law. And we could start right here if we have the evidence.