This Is Starting To Border On Tyrany

Recounts were done past the legislated cut-off date. All of them showed Bush the winner. It had to stop eventually, which was the purpose of the legislatively prescribed cut-off date.

As I understand it though there was never a full recount. I mean there were partials then the courts got involved and put and end to it. And since when do the courts have the right to decide the outcome of an election??? That's congresses job to decide issues like that.

That's why the current administration is so adament about not subscribing to the world court: Mr. Bush has committed war crimes under international law. I don't think he is interested in sitting in the Dock on trial....

I agree fully with this and I think this is one area we need to amendment is that when dealing on the international level our leaders are responsible to the international arena for their actions. This might just help prevent some abuses like the Iraq War.

Which by the way is a crime against Peace which according the Nuremberg charter is a crime.

I have no problem with an amendment to punish abuses of power, but I would oppose any amendent giving authority to any nation or national organization other than our own. I feel we need to protect our sovereignty to the fullest.

Swanny

Internally yes but when we deal with external forces we have to hold ourselves accountable for our actions. Based on your theory you'd let the criminal prosecute him/herself. How likely do you think it would be that they would find themselves guilty?

Would any sort of world court be any less biased than an American court? EVERYONE has an agenda and every nation has it's own internal and external political agendas.

My own agenda is that I already feel alienated by a government that is based 3,000 miles away and doesn't have a stinkin' clue or give a single care about how the laws they create impact my neighbors and I. If I can't trust my own allegedly representative government, how the heck could I be expected to trust a court made up of various governments, all with their own political agendas?

Any international court would have representatives either wishing to curry favor with the U.S. or wishing to discredit the US. Do you really think politicians from other nations are any more honorable or trustworthy than our own?

You frequently complain of the US courts going well beyond their authority to write as well as interpret law, for example determining the outcome of a presidential election. Is there any reason at all to believe that an international court would not presume to do the same things?

Finally, if indeed our president is guilty of crimes then it is our responsibility to charge, hear, try and punish the president, not the responsibility of the world, or the UN or anyone else. OUR responsibility. Asking some higher power that doesn't even exist to do so for is is just another example of trying to make someone else responsible for our own decisions.

President Bush will be on trial in November, 2004. I'm betting the whole darned democratic party campaign will be aimed at trying the president for his alleged crimes. If they can make him look bad they certainly will.

We put our presidents on trial every four years, each time we hold a presidential election. If we aren't willing to vote him out of office we certainly shouldn't be crying to some world court to do what we are unwilling to do ourselves.

Swanny

A wise man once said that a real man will shoot his own dog when necessary, not let someone else who might bungle the job do it. Well said, Swanny.

Just my tuppence.

Andy

Swanny

Answer this question as I noticed you didn't

Would you let a criminal prosecute him/herself?

If your answer is no then why the double standard with regards to a country?

A criminal is a criminal no matter the size. Why would you let a US court try the US for a crime the US committed say in Iraq as that's the current main issue at hand today. I would never believe the US was properly punished for said crime with a not guilty verdict unless it was from sources that we not part of the guilty. Like it or not if the USA is really guilty of a war crime then we all are guilty of that crime. Does that mean we should all be sent to Jail? No because it is those who control government that have to take responsibility for their illegal action made in our name and it is the government who should be the ones that take the fall for our country when government commits a crime on the international level.

I'm not Swanny, but can I take a swing at it? Can I? Please? Can I?

The point of your argument seems to be that the entire country is to be held responsible for the deed, and therefore can't be trusted. Isn't that what happened at Versailles in 1918-19? Remember where that led?

The person responsible is the one responsible, not the nation at-large. If it is a lowly butter-bar in the field or the commander in chief, there are measures in place for dealing with an alleged perpetrator. If the offense is heinous enough for the commander-in-chief to be held personally responsible for its implementation, he may be tried (after impeachment, of course). For your purposes, a good charge would be under 18 USC 1091 (a)(1), to wit, for violating the Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987. It would be a real trial with judges, lawyers, the press and everything. And it would be just as fair as an international trial. Jurists are jurists the world round. No need to compromise our nation's sovereignty to appease other countries, and the alleged perpetrator gets tried. You may not agree with the verdict, but that's life.

As I said, a real man shoots his own dog when necessary. He doesn't delegate it to someone who might mess it up.

Just my tuppence.

Andy

Here is a link to the United States Code

But at least state side the courts are appointed and remain appointed at the grace not of the people but really now a days especially at the grace of government. They have an ax hanging over their head to support the government whenever possible. This is why I say they could never really rule fairly and impartially in cases like this. But face it if there was no crime this would be a moot issue now wouldn't it???

Are YOU volunteering to shoot the dog?

Andy

By the way missed your USC link as it was below you name signature but is my favorite law website the best one out there even better then the governments version as it oresents law so well. Even their CFR version is pretty good. But not sure that really would help as the USC applies to the US alone. Would you have wanted Germany to try itself for war crimes? Obviously at the point it was good enough for the US to have an internation court charging Nazi's with war crimes so why now should it be different for the US? If it was good enough to have an international court to try war crimes it should still be just as good even if we're the criminals meaning the US

Yep. I had to administer .40 cal therapy to an elderly dog of ours just a couple of weeks ago. He had gotten so down with dysplasia that he couldn't rise. So, I put him out of his misery. Didn't enjoy it, but it had to be done.

Andy

Please to note that the Nuremburg Tribunal consisted of the winners of the war. It was not a conglomeration of nations with no stake in anything except national aggrandizement. It was victor's justice. For better or worse. I have never understood internationalist fascination with that tribunal. It was no different from many "courts" which have tried the losers of wars through history. In this one the charges were different, but the outcome was the same, except there was no financial levy on Germany.

And there is the fact that the socio-political infrastructure of Germany was destroyed in the war. They had no way to effectively try the accused in German courts. Of course, there was no real legal recourse in German law at the time. There is in United States law at the current time. That is the difference. Other countries might not like it, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

Just my tuppence.

Andy