European Tribune

Display:
Since when have Bush or cheney done anything for the good of the country ??

After all, there is precisely zero chance of either of them being indicted on war crimes charges and they know it.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Oct 7th, 2008 at 09:56:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Aren't war crime indictments an international thing? Why can't some other country start the proceedings? Or maybe it's only the U.S. that has the international remit to accuse, try, and convict war criminals...
by asdf on Tue Oct 7th, 2008 at 12:59:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The International Criminal Court can only indict once it is clear that the home country cannot ot will not prosecute.

And the US is not a party to the ICC anyway.

Universal jurisdiction has been under assault since the Pinochet arrest, because we know what team our elites bat for.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 7th, 2008 at 01:08:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The International Criminal Court can only indict once it is clear that the home country cannot ot will not prosecute.
Surely that condition will be fulfilled should Bush grant his people pardons and should no proceeding in this regard be underway by sometime in February, 2009.  In fact, an ICOJ statement to that effect in December could have a very salutary effect on US politics.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.
by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Tue Oct 7th, 2008 at 01:26:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There is always the Hague Invasion Act.

Also, the US is not party to the ICC so the ICC cannot prosecute.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 7th, 2008 at 01:43:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've never managed to get a straight answer to this, and it's something I want to know.

The question I've asked is If the President does his make it all go away pardon magic, how does that affect international extradition warrants?  Say for example Germany has one of its citizens grabbed and mistreated, under the indirect orders of Bush. Now according to the UN convention against torture, which the US has ratified if you have an extradition treaty covering anything, then extradition for torture is automatically included in it. What happens when George gets dragged up before the courts, after he's stepped down?  when he gets up before the courts, how does the one size fits all pardonomatic work against that? or will a foreign country one of whose citizens has been mistreated have to get justice by proxy for the average citizen.

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Tue Oct 7th, 2008 at 01:13:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Obviously arrogant pretense must be slapped down if the laws are to retain any meaning other than what the current POTUS claims them to mean.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.
by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Tue Oct 7th, 2008 at 01:29:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It shouldn't have any effect on international warrants; in fact, by making clear that the U.S. has no intention to prosecute, it might make it easier to press charges.

But this would only apply if he travels outside the U.S. As far as extradition from the U.S. itself is concerned, it will be no different from extradition for terrorism (Luis Posada Carriles), i.e., it will be ignored. There's not much the other country can do, beyond abrogating the extradition treaty (which Chavez may do some day, if he's looking for another way to thumb his nose at the Americans).

by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Tue Oct 7th, 2008 at 01:46:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm pleased that you mentioned the concept of international warrants. The underlying concept of due process goes to the enforcability and jurisdiction of a GLOBAL CIVIL COURT where GLOBAL torts such as financial fraud might be adjudicated with respect to the business practices of transnational corporate entities. "Some people" believe that the proper solution to the GLOBAL FINANCIAL PANIC are GLOBAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS and GLOBAL LAWS to define the limits of financial risks or impairments (of income) inherent to structured securities. This wish is of course untenable as it perforce requires establishment and funding of a GLOBAL AGENCY to administrate (record and examine, minimally) every financial transaction, so producing evidentiary discrepancies to warrant either further investigation or prosecution before a GLOBAL TRIBUNAL.

The effort to calibrate and to reconcile national GAAPs by BCBS treaties have't harmonized product characteristics despite 20 years of negotiation. Why? Financial corporations and institutional investors rely on arbitrage (asymetries of information and supply) to obtain profits.

Arbitrage is a socially acceptable (normative) business practice and that is the fundamental problem with resource and financial capitalist ideology. The "mother" of suckers, if you will, is the residual political power of knowing a reality that is obscure or invisible to one's counterpart: acting out a lie.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by MarketTrustee on Tue Oct 7th, 2008 at 02:24:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series