Guy Incognito
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 14, 2010
- Messages
- 11,216
- Reaction score
- 2,846
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Side note: Could it be any more obvious that you're getting your information about universal jurisdiction from wikipedia?
Universal jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You really want to know? Grotius, Vattel, Gentili, on down the line to Karl Llewellyn and Richard Posner have defined it as such. In short, everybody but a handful of neocons in the past decade. But perhaps most importantly to our discussion, Henry Billings Brown defined universal jurisdiction as such in the controlling Supreme Court case US v. The Ambrose Light. Look it up.
It's only highly disputed in the United States, and even then the critics are people like Henry Kissinger, who is himself a war criminal. Take that with a grain of salt. Real legal scholars know there is no dispute about universal jurisdiction's applicability to war criminals.
Yes, there is. Universal jurisdiction allows a war criminal to be haled into court in any jurisdiction he can be found. A war crime is a crime against all humanity, hence all courts are appropriate venue, subject to their internally limited jurisdiction.
And nothing about the ICC's charter limits the scope of universal jurisdiction. QED
I don't think you're understanding my point.
Let's say that I come up with something called superduper universal jurisdiction. I believe that superduper universal jurisdiction allows me to prosecute you for daring to disagree with me on an internet message board. I hereby declare you an outlaw and demand that you appear before me to be sentenced to life in prison.
Do you plan on showing up? Do you think I have the authority to do that? Why or why not?
Nonsensical is more like it. Universal jurisdiction only extends to jus cogens crimes, nothing else. So war crimes, genocide, piracy, agression, crimes of that nature. So you're just all kinds of wrong, here.
But you're being incoherent. You don't define the parameters of universal jurisdiction, the community of nations does. So if the community of nations defined trolling as a crime ius cogens, then yes, universal jurisdiction would apply. But that is a ridiculous hypothetical. We're talking about the here and now. Slaver-traders, for instance, didn't used to be covered by universal jurisdicition in the time of Grotius. But the definition expanded, and rightfully so, to include them. See Ambrose Light about that. And after Nuremberg it has grown to include war crimes. See the cases of Adolf Eichmann and Augusto Pinochet about that.
Wrong. War criminals fall under universal jurisdiction no matter what their nationality, and no matter what their home country's status as signatory to the Rome Statute. Look it up.
Prove what?I want Amnesty International and the U.N banned from the U.S. and Obama impeached for violation of his oath of office.
A new LAW demanding all who run for President must prove it and in court if need be, and if found to have run illegally you get a mandatory 10 years in Federal prison no exceptions and Presidents can never declare a Presidential pardon for any crime committed by anyone in the administration of the President charged with any crime, or misdemeanor, including removed Presidents.
But none of that's not going to happen either, because it's too close to justice.
I think you miight be on to something here.
Being as how the UN is in the USA it should be appropriate to arrest most of the UN members..
And as soon as America elects a real President, I hope they do just that!
[W]hat makes you think that some court can declare that it has the authority to prosecute people from any country, regardless of whether their country accedes to that court's jurisdiction?
Using your logic, what is there to stop me from declaring myself a competent tribunal to hear those cases?
I am all for water boarding. See America always takes the high road even in torture. Water boarding is not torture. SERE school was torture and I enlisted to go through it.
And any of you hypocrites want to sit here in judgement want to tell me that if your child was being held hostage and the one person whom could save their life was sitting in front of you and refuse to talk, tell me that you wouldnt consider and then follow through with doing anything within your means to get them to talk.
Some court isn't the one declaring that it has the authority, generations of international legal scholars have decided that. And more to the point, in the United States the controlling opinion of Justice Brown in the Ambrose Light case agrees with them. Is it starting to sink in yet?
The fact that you are not a sovereign nation is what keeps you from declaring yourself a competent tribunal. Do you have any other ridiculous questions?
I have not seen many here with such passion over an issue and yet so ignorant of the issue that they are passionate about. you have selective outrage as you totally ignore the enemy we have that doesn't represent any nation, beheads people, flies planes into buildings, straps bombs on their backs to blow up market places and yet you want to give them the same rights as soldiers of sovereign nations. With all due respect how old are you?
The heads of state who torture are no better than any pirate or genocidal thug.
As for my ignorance, I'll say that you're right I don't know much. But I am not ignorant of the law with regard to war crimes and universal jurisdiction, and I would dare say it is some of the people who I've been arguing against in this thread who are exceedingly ignorant there. The thread speaks for itself about that.
Who's ignoring the "enemy that doesn't respect nations?" That enemy will meet with justice at the hand of our military. I'll let them be dealt with according to due process and the laws of war, which thank God the vast majority of our military respects.
It's the enemy within that I am worried about. The heads of state who torture are no better than any pirate or genocidal thug. They should meet with justice too, but unfortunately when it comes to people like Bush, they have too much clout and game the system.
As for my ignorance, I'll say that you're right I don't know much. But I am not ignorant of the law with regard to war crimes and universal jurisdiction, and I would dare say it is the people who I've been arguing against in this thread who are exceedingly ignorant there. The thread speaks for itself about that.
That military that you respect so much respects GW Bush and doesn't have the problems you do with waterboarding the terrorists as it saved a lot of lives.
You are indeed ignorant of the law as evidenced by your posts. Terrorists are not governed by international law and thus have no protection under that law even if waterboarding was torture. This country abides by international law as a choice not a responsibility and certainly doesn't have any responsibility to apply international law to terrorists as that was never the intent.
Some court isn't the one declaring that it has the authority, generations of international legal scholars have decided that. And more to the point, in the United States the controlling opinion of Justice Brown in the Ambrose Light case agrees with them. Is it starting to sink in yet?
I don't anthhropomorphize the military like that. There area lot of diverse political views in the military, but it's really irrelevant to my respect for their service or to my opinions on policy.
I won't address any of your red herring issues. Let's try to stay focused shall we? I like you, I wouldn't want to see the mods yell at you for going off topic.
The above is precisely the kind of ignorance of the law I'm talking about! Of course terrorists are "covered under international law." All criminals are covered under internaitional law, and torturing any kind of criminal is a crime against humanity. I think where you're getting confused is that the Geneva convention doesn't cover terrorists.
All human beings have protection under jus cogens. That's what it means in Latin, compelling law. The United States Suprme Court defines this as law from which no derogation is permitted. You can't trade slaves, period. Even if your'e outside of US jurisdiction we can still try you for it in our courts. Same deal for courts in Timbuktu. Torture is a crime jus cogens. QED
That is an argument. Address it on its merits or don't bother to address me at all.
There in lies your problem, these are not criminals they represent a perverted ideology that wants even you dead because of their interpretation of their religion. You, just like Obama, simply don't understand the enemy we face.
what did Obama do to hurt you or your family?
Hey you ask the question all the friggen time.t Has nothing to do with the thread topic
Guy Incognito
Try as I might, I can't see any real details on Justice Brown in the Ambrose Light case, nor do i see any mention in the Supreme Court cases. Did Justice Brown claim that American Presidents, and former Presidents, could be arrested by foreign governments?
Hey, you're looking it up. I respect that :thumbs: Here's the short cite: 25 F. 408. I'll look around for more.
There's nothing special about ex-presidents. Sitting heads of state get a pass, for diplomatic reasons, and reasons of national security. But ex presidents are just private citizens, and must be treated as such. A private citizen who tortures is subject to universal jurisdiction, just like a private citizen who commits genocide.
I would do it and happily accept punishment as I would have deserved, knowing that I did the right thing. Two wrongs do not make a right.
I disagree. It doesn't go that far. Lying to bolster support for a war is a different issue than torture. I think there is a much slimmer case for the war crime of aggression.But of course we are not just dealing with a former presient here. The US President lacks the power to go to war, if that's what you want President Bush tried for, on his own.
This would mean that everyone who voted for the war, who supported the President in his decision, must also be tried. It could get quite messy.
As you know, Islamic terroists remain a threat to the entire world so if you are truly interested in hunting down international criminals I suggest you start with those who commit, and advocate, terrorism. What do you propose we do with Islamic terrorusts?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?