tso-d_chris 0 #51 October 6, 2005 QuoteI support the right for descent, and descent can be a good thing only as long as it does'nt get me killed. Dude, pretty much everyone on DZ.com believes in the right to descent. What we are interested in, is do you believe in the right to dissent? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BetsyJ47 0 #52 October 6, 2005 are you implying our government is deliberatly torturing innocent folk for propaganda? __________________________________________________ For the first year or so of the war ,during the hunt for WMDs, people were tortured in order to gain information as to the whereabouts of Saddams stockpiles. We now know that W and the penquin made up the lie of WMDs and that there were none at the time of invasion . Innocent people were being tortured in an attempt to gain information which they couldn't possibly have. Betsy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelk1 0 #53 October 7, 2005 QuoteIf it is proven that the Bush administration authorized the torture of detainees, should GW be given the death penalty? Isn't the move by Sen. McCain to support an anti-torture amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill and the backing by Gen. Powell a sufficient proof? http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/12825913.htm As a matter of fact, I know it did not make it to google news (their share price is prolly more important), Spain just ruled (like Belgium tried) that its justice is competent for judging crimes against humanity, committed out of Spanish territory, even when no Spanish citizen was involved. On the other hand, is there any country concerned by crimes against humanity that still allows death penalty? McCain again: "What all this means is that America is the only country in the world that asserts a legal right to engage in cruel and inhuman treatment." http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=NewsCenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=1611 So the President should be well treated as long as he is not arrested on foreign soil by a US agency ;) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelk1 0 #54 October 7, 2005 Quote If it is proven that the Bush administration authorized the torture of detainees, should GW be given the death penalty? Also, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1418304.stm: "The [Hague] tribunal is the first international body for the prosecution of war crimes since the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials (...) The tribunal may not try suspects in absentia, nor impose the death penalty." One reason to ratify its creation? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #55 October 7, 2005 QuoteFirst, ya need someone to arrest him. (The Secret Service might have something to say abotu that. The power to arrest a serving head of state does not exist by virtue of Article 39 of the Vienna Convention. Only after Bush stepped down from all state functions would he loose his diplomatic immunity. As for the secret service... he's not going to be able to take enough servicemen with him wherever he goes after retirement to prevent his arrest by a foreign power. The likelihood is arrest would only occur one he stepped foot on foreign soil. Just as with Major General Doron Almog last week who I referenced earlier. There have also been instances of SAS snatch teams descending from helicopters to arrest people accused of similar crimes. I most certainly cannot envisage that happening... but the legal principle is there. QuoteOops, first you might need a warrant from somplace, but that won't be hard. No it probably wouldn't really – at least in some of these hypothetical situations we can conjure up in order to examine the legal situation anyway. QuoteGonna extradite him to Brussels? No need. As I point out above, at length, courts in EVERY country that has signed the International Convention against Torture have not only the power but the DUTY to prosecute individuals suspected of ordering or allowing torture. There's no need to ship suspects to Brussels - the trial can go ahead in ANY of the signatory nations. QuoteOr just grab him up next time he steps out of the country? Yes, that's the point. That's what generally happens. People here are acting like the situation I describe is without precedent!? Quote"Evidence of that come to light" hmmm there may be some differences between rules of evidence and "come to light" The rules of evidence that would apply would be whatever rules of evidence found in the national courts of wherever the case was to be heard. If in England, they would be the English rules of evidence. If in France - the French. If in Iraq - Iraqi. Simple as that. As for how the evidence came out, well maybe in the same way as perhaps that "zippergate" evidence "came to light". In this fictional scenario that we have conjured up which leads to Bush's arrest on torture charges perhaps he has already resigned in a storm of public protest in the US? Perhaps it's just leaked memos like those which came out earlier this year regarding White House re-classification of what "torture" meant. Those memo's (from memory) couldn't be linked to Bush and didn't actually prove any torture went on anyway but what if memo's which did, "came to light"? What if Bush admitted it all in a resignation speech just as Clinton did? Since this is all just a hypothetical scenario we can only make things up and look at the legal situation that would then arise. I was simply commenting on the theoretical legal position should "such evidence come to light". I've already noted on the first page of the thread that the evidential problems are more likely to exceed the legal ones. The legal questions (again as already mentioned) are actually already answered (in the UK at least), so it's actually rather easy to hypothesize on what could happen were "such evidence to come to light". That's all I've done here - clear up the legal frame work for those who might wish to hypothesize about what evidence there may be out there. Quotetrial and then execute him I've already said "no" to that one. It is highly unlikely he would be executed as a result of such charges. Very few countries world wide to which a retired Bush is likely to travel still use the death penalty. If one of those who do have the death penalty requested the extradition of Bush from somewhere where he was then again, many countries have a policy of not extraditing a suspect to a country where they would face the death penalty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest 1010 #56 October 7, 2005 you're just dreamin ... it'll never happen ... but it's no loss to me, you might as well dream on You can have it good, fast, or cheap: pick two. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #57 October 7, 2005 Quoteyou're just dreamin No, I'm simply exercising my knowledge of international constitutional law. Mainly for my own ammusement but also partly for the edification of anyone who cares to read Quoteit'll never happen I agree entirely. It's highly unlikely that Bush will ever find himself facing any such charges... but that is for evidential reasons rather than legal reasons... but then, I believe I already said that two pages back. (oh yeah, and of course the very real possability that he is actually innocent of any wrongdoing) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #58 October 7, 2005 QuoteQuoteWell said. People should not be shedding one tear for these f**kers in Cuba or wherever. These are not random chances that they are there. You 100% sure that every one in Cuba is guilty and we have made no mistakes? Of course. That's why they don't need trials. They have been captured by infallible Afghan warlords and turned over to those super human equally infallible beings known as US soldiers. They are getting, what's coming to them HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #59 October 7, 2005 >We now know that W and the penquin made up the lie of WMDs... And that is why you have no credibility with me. You surely need to start coming up with new lines. cheers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tso-d_chris 0 #60 October 7, 2005 QuoteWe now know that W and the penquin made up the lie of WMDs and that there were none at the time of invasion I thought the Penguin has been busy trying to break Windows. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
