« Back to story "A Case for International War Crimes Tribunals"

Story Comments

Posted by: Spadecaller 8 months, 1 week ago

This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.

All Comments Share Story Report

  • 78%
    Spadecaller8 months, 1 week ago

    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

    Recent memoranda discovered during the Bush administration revealed that the White House had received assurance from legal counsel that there was little possibility of an existing tribunal that would enforce the laws regarding war crimes and illegal torture. Without an established and permanent war crimes court, war criminals may feel emboldened to commit crimes.

    Has the time come to create a tribunal and to bring war criminals up for trial? What do you think?

    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
    Reply

    10 Replies

    loading loading ...
    • 50%
      hyperbola8 months, 1 week ago

      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

      We will see if Obama is serious about joining the world's democracies and abandoning our military imperialism when we see if he signs the US up to the international criminal court.

      There is no question that we have a boatload of criminals that need trials. This article provides a good list of them and provides Obama a good opportunity to show whether he will really enforce the american constitution.

      The torture trail starts and ends in the White House

      ...This disclosure comes after the Senate Armed Services Committee’s detailed report, which debunks almost all the claims that Bush Administration officials have thrown up to put investigators off the trail of the torture policy. The claim that the decision to introduce torture was done to accommodate interrogators who were frustrated by their inability to get results, for instance, is belied by the fact that the White House was busy pursuing torture techniques and authority to introduce them before any prisoners had yet been taken....

      But each of these disclosures points again to a great mass of potential evidence remaining securely hidden. Colin Powell himself has repeatedly noted that the National Security Council was the center of activity with respect to the introduction of torture and that it carefully documents its internal processes with minutes and records. He urged those pursuing the issue to press for full disclosure of these materials. His guidance (which is remarkable among other things because he will himself be at the center of the inquiry) is revealed by the Holder memorandum to be spot-on....

      President Obama and several of his senior advisors are now plainly concerned about the torture issue and the momentum it has achieved. ... We know now that the White House considers it politically “inconvenient” to do this. So the big open question is whether we have an attorney general who enforces the law, or a Democratic version of Alberto Gonzales. That will become apparent soon enough.

      http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/04/26/the-tort...

      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply
      loading loading ...
      • 0%
        hyperbola8 months, 1 week ago

        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

        Of coures Spade, the other group that has richly earned international criminal trials over the past 60 years are the zionists in Palestine. You do support trials for them as well don't you?

        Investigating Israeli War Crimes in Gaza

        ... Amnesty International accused Israel of war crimes and called on the UN Security Council to impose an arms embargo. ...

        ...Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHRI) and the Palestinian Medical Relief Society (PMRS) compiled detailed evidence of war crimes in a lengthy report...

        http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va=...

        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply

        5 Replies

        loading loading ...
        • Neutral
          hyperbola8 months, 1 week ago

          This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

          Why is Hezbollah, but not Israel, on the Terrorism List?

          There is no evidence of terrorism by Hezbollah, which regularly condemns acts of terrorism on religious grounds. AIPAC has pressured the State Dept. into putting Hezbollah on the list on phony grounds. In contrast, there are more than 6600 documented acts of israeli state terrorism against Lebanon in the period 1967-2007.

          http://www.counterpunch.org/lamb04062007.html

          (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
          Reply

          4 Replies

          loading loading ...
          • 100%
            dailyblueberry8 months, 1 week ago

            This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

            "There is no evidence of terrorism by Hezbollah..."

            Just did a quick search and the 9/11 commision report came up.

            http://www.newsday.com/media/acrobat/2004-07/13520...

            One line states..."In 1983 came Hezbollah’s massacre of the Marines in Beirut."

            (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
            Reply

            3 Replies

            loading loading ...
            • Neutral
              Ratskii8 months, 1 week ago

              This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

              Hezbollah wasn't in existance as an organization in 1983. They may have some members in common with the organization that killed the marines, but I don't think it was the same organization that exists today.

              (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
              Reply

              2 Replies

              loading loading ...
              • Neutral
                dailyblueberry8 months ago

                This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

                Maybe the commission was wrong?

                (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
                Reply

                1 Reply

                loading loading ...
                • Neutral
                  hyperbola8 months ago

                  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

                  Actually if you read the article to which I provided the link above, your question was answered.

                  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
                  Reply
                  loading loading ...
        • 33%
          Endoscopy8 months, 1 week ago

          This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

          Another Spadecaller idiocy. What is the Federal law regarding torture? Is waterboarding considered torture according to the US law?

          Here is the Federal law foolish libs. Notice that there is no pain associated with waterboarding and the “severe mental pain or suffering” does not qualify either. Congress in 2002 approved these methods but now they have amnesia. Democrats are lying about this for political advantage as well as Obama hurting our interrogation of terrorists by releasing those documents. It was done to only three men and the information obtained saved an attack on LA that could have killed thousands. Spadecaller wishes that those thousands were killed instead. What a bloodthirsty guy.

          ---------------------------------------------
          US Code TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 113C
          2340. Definitions

          As used in this chapter—

          (1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

          (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
          (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
          (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
          (C) the threat of imminent death; or
          (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

          (3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
          ---------------------------------------------

          (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
          Reply

          2 Replies

          loading loading ...
          • 100%
            sinophil498 months ago

            This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

            endo - A treaty signed by an official representative of the United States government has the force of law in our land. The Supreme Court even went so far as to declare that a signed treaty abrogates any state or FEDERAL statute that is in conflict with the treaty.

            Also, there is NO attack on LA that was aborted by information obtained during torture of a suspected terrorist. That is an urban myth started and perpetuated by the fanatical neocons trying to defend torture.

            In point of fact, any useful information was obtained by trained interrogation BEFORE torture was initiated. Trained FBI agent Ali Soufan, as reported in the current issue of Newsweek magazine, with his FBI colleague Steve Gaudin, nursed Abu Zubaydah's wounds and gained his confidence. Thru careful interrogation, they got Zubaydah to reveal the name of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the mastermind of the 9/11 plot and the name of Jose Padilla who was tring to build a dirty bomb.

            However, the CIA then stepped in and kicked Soufan off the case. As soon as the torture started, the CIA obtained no further useful information. Soufan was instructed by his superiors to leave the scene of the torture.

            Lastly, I am at a loss to understand what you intended to say by posting this legal mumbo-jumbo about definitions of torture. Are you trying to say that waterboarding, sleep deprivation, throwing prisoners repeatedly against a wall, cold immersion, sexual abuse. standing still endlessly, etc are NOT torture?

            It might interest you to know that standing still for hours is the actual mechanism by which Jesus Christ died on the cross. Blood flows downward. The legs swell. Blood pressure drops. Kidneys shut down. The lungs get less blood flow and less oxygenation. The mind is deprived of circulation and hallucinates and cells die. This technique was revived by the KGB and was simply copied by our forces.

            (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
            Reply

            1 Reply

            loading loading ...
            • Neutral
              Georgia508 months ago

              This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

              "The Supreme Court even went so far as to declare that a signed treaty abrogates any state or FEDERAL statute that is in conflict with the treaty."

              Do you have a cite for that? Because the court's precedent to the contrary is Reid vs. Covert, 1957.

              (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
              Reply
              loading loading ...

        Post Reply

        You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.

        People Who Liked This Comment (7)

        People Who Didn't Like This Comment (2)