It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by questioningall
Exclusive interview on CNN - Manfred Nowak - UN's special Rep on Torture.
He says that the U.S. is required to bring Bush and Rumsfield to trial, due to the treaty that Reagan signed with the other countries of the world.
He says there is direct and absolute evidence to make a case specifically against Donald Rumsfield.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
America pays 1/4 of the UN bills.
The UN is in New York - an American City.
You all can stop drooling. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.
The UN has always had problems with members refusing to pay the assessment levied upon them under the United Nations Charter. But the most significant refusal in recent times has been that of the U.S. For a number of years, the U.S. Congress refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force UN compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment
Originally posted by Animal
Originally posted by sos37
So you're saying that if we stopped supporting Israel by some chance that Al Qaida would leave the U.S. alone? I don't buy that for a minute! It would be one excuse after another to hate us, but what it boils down to is that we're not exclusively Muslim. While some Muslims are fine with that, the extremists aren't and they want to see us dead.
So your response is for the USA to become extremist and see to it that we make THEM all dead?
Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
Why do I get the image of Bush viewing this thread saying, "dance monkeys, dance"?
No matter what you think of Bush it’d be nice for people to address the OP without acting like what it proposes is ludicrous. It is definitely not ludicrous. Charging them with war crimes may not be obligatory but it is doable, and appropriate. Whether they’ll actually be held responsible for their actions is a whole other issue. Just because something should happen doesn’t mean it will, and even when it does you don’t always get the results you’re hoping for.
Originally posted by lunarminer
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
They are terrorists and conducted terroristic acts, so they are not eligible for
humanitarian treatment in my opinion.
Originally posted by Keyhole
Originally posted by centurion1211
I believe in setting precedents and in 'slippery slopes'. You do this to one leader and how long before any and every group with a real or imagined axe to grind files charges against obama and/or any other world leader.
Think about it. I mean really think about what you'd be setting all world leaders up for in your zeal to nail Bush.
So, what your saying is that, no matter what any leader of any country does, they should never have to answer to ANYBODY for crimes they may have committed or ordered during their reign as leader?
That's ridiculous!
Never mind the "get out of jail free" card, you are saying that leaders of countries should not have to adhere to ANY laws anywhere, and would never even need a "get out of jail free" card!
All the other world leaders have nothing to worry about unless they broke a law/committed a crime, or ordered a law to be broken!
If they couldn't do their jobs as leaders without breaking laws, they should have resigned!
Despite what a lot of people say, laws weren't made to be broken, especially by our leaders who should be held to a higher standard!
[edit on 1/27/2009 by Keyhole]
Originally posted by lunarminer
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
I first read about waterboarding in 2003. If the government was trying to hide it, then they did a poor job. As for me, my opinion has not changed since I first heard about it. I also have not read anywhere, that anyone other than the 3 al-Qaeda members were waterboarded. If you have information that someone else was waterboarded then please post it.
If you are refering to something else, then by all means share that information as well.
Originally posted by ludaChris
Originally posted by questioningall
You have to watch the video, it IS against the law in the U.S., due to the fact that Reagan signed a treaty, that makes it International law and U.S. law.
Well, not so fast, as much as I would like to see those two brought to justice for their crimes. The President doesn't have the constitutional authority to enter into ANY agreements with other nations. They do it anyways because they can get away with it. But I bet if they did try to bring them to trial under this treaty, they'd head for cover under the constitution like they love it all the sudden.
Treaties Plain and Simple
[edit on 1/27/2009 by ludaChris]
Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
Why do I get the image of Bush viewing this thread saying, "dance monkeys, dance"?