PDA

View Full Version : Obama: Possible of War Crimes Charges????



Sev
06-22-2012, 12:55 PM
Oh the irony would be to funny.
Barack Hussein Idi Ahmin Obam.

I would just love to see the lefts kanipshin if this occurred.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/21/drone-strikes-international-law-un
<span style='font-size: 23pt'>Drone strikes threaten 50 years of international law, says UN rapporteur</span>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>US policy of using drone strikes to carry out targeted killings 'may encourage other states to flout international law'
</span>

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Users/Help/screenshots/2011/4/17/1303052955864/Predator-Drone-007.jpg



The US policy of using aerial drones to carry out targeted killings presents a major challenge to the system of international law that has endured since the second world war, a United Nations investigator has said.

Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, summary or arbitrary executions, told a conference in Geneva that President Obama's attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, carried out by the CIA, would encourage other states to flout long-established human rights standards.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'><span style='font-size: 14pt'>In his strongest critique so far of drone strikes, Heyns suggested some may even constitute "war crimes".</span> </span>His comments come amid rising international unease over the surge in killings by remotely piloted unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

Addressing the conference, which was organised by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a second UN rapporteur, Ben Emmerson QC, who monitors counter-terrorism, announced he would be prioritising inquiries into drone strikes.

The London-based barrister said the issue was moving rapidly up the international agenda after China and Russia this week jointly issued a statement at the UN Human Rights Council, backed by other countries, condemning drone attacks.

If the US or any other states responsible for attacks outside recognised war zones did not establish independent investigations into each killing, Emmerson emphasised, then "the UN itself should consider establishing an investigatory body".

Also present was Pakistan's ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Zamir Akram, who called for international legal action to halt the "totally counterproductive attacks" by the US in his country.

Heyns, a South African law professor, told the meeting: "Are we to accept major changes to the international legal system which has been in existence since world war two and survived nuclear threats?"

Some states, he added, "find targeted killings immensely attractive. Others may do so in future … Current targeting practices weaken the rule of law. Killings may be lawful in an armed conflict [such as Afghanistan] but many targeted killings take place far from areas where it's recognised as being an armed conflict."

If it is true, he said, that "there have been secondary drone strikes on rescuers who are helping (the injured) after an initial drone attack, those further attacks are a war crime".

Heyns ridiculed the US suggestion that targeted UAV strikes on al-Qaida or allied groups were a legitimate response to the 9/11 attacks. "It's difficult to see how any killings carried out in 2012 can be justified as in response to [events] in 2001," he said. "Some states seem to want to invent new laws to justify new practices.

"The targeting is often operated by intelligence agencies which fall outside the scope of accountability. The term 'targeted killing' is wrong because it suggests little violence has occurred. The collateral damage may be less than aerial bombardment, but because they eliminate the risk to soldiers they can be used more often."

Heyns told the Guardian later that his future inquiries are likely to include the question of whether other countries, such as the UK, share intelligence with the US that could be used for selecting individuals as targets. A legal case has already been lodged in London over the UK's alleged role in the deaths of British citizens and others as a consequence of US drone strikes in Pakistan.

Emmerson said that protection of the right to life required countries to establish independent inquiries into each drone killing. "That needs to be applied in the context of targeted killings," he said. "It's possible for a state to establish an independent ombudsman to inquire into every attack and there needs to be a report to justify [the killing]."

Alternatively, he said, it was "for the UN itself to consider establishing an investigatory body. Drones attacks by the US raise fundamental questions which are a direct consequence of my mandate… If they don't [investigate] themselves, we will do it for them."

It is time, he added, to end the "conspiracy of silence" over drone attacks and "shine the light of independent investigation" into the process. The attacks, he noted, were not only on those who had been killed but on the system of "international law itself".

The Pakistani ambassador declared that more than a thousand civilians had been killed in his country by US drone strikes. "We find the use of drones to be totally counterproductive in terms of succeeding in the war against terror. It leads to greater levels of terror rather than reducing them," he said.

Claims made by the US about the accuracy of drone strikes were "totally incorrect", he added. Victims who had tried to bring compensation claims through the Pakistani courts had been blocked by US refusals to respond to legal actions.

The US has defended drone attacks as self-defence against al-Qaida and has refused to allow judicial scrutiny of the UAV programme. On Wednesday, the Obama administration issued a fresh rebuff through the US courts to an ACLU request for information about targeting policies. Such details, it insisted, must remain "classified".

Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's national security project, said: "Something that is being debated in UN hallways and committee rooms cannot apparently be talked about in US courtrooms, according to the government. Whether the CIA is involved in targeted lethal operation is now classified. It's an absurd fiction."

<span style="color: #990000"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>The ACLU estimates that as many as 4,000 people have been killed in US drone strikes since 2002 in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Of those, a significant proportion were civilians. The numbers killed have escalated significantly since Obama became president.</span></span>

The USA is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (ICC) or many other international legal forums where legal action might be started. It is, however, part of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) where cases can be initiated by one state against another.

Ian Seiderman, director of the International Commission of Jurists, told the conference that "immense damage was being done to the fabric of international law".

One of the latest UAV developments that concerns human rights groups is the way in which attacks, they allege, have moved towards targeting groups based on perceived patterns of behaviour that look suspicious from aerial surveillance, rather than relying on intelligence about specific al-Qaida activists.

In response to a report by Heyns to the UN Human Rights Council this week, the US put out a statement in Geneva saying there was "unequivocal US commitment to conducting such operations with extraordinary care and in accordance with all applicable law, including the law of war".

It added that there was "continuing commitment to greater transparency and a sincere effort to address some of the important questions that have been raised".

Soflasnapper
06-22-2012, 01:16 PM
Ian Seiderman, director of the International Commission of Jurists, told the conference that "immense damage was being done to the fabric of international law".

True. And not for the first time here. Essentially, the US cannot be brooked in whatever we do, short of a military defeat or a collapse of the country. Had we lost WW II, it would have been our political and military leaders in the dock for war crimes, not the Axis powers' leaderships.

We created the international law regime ourselves, for our own purposes. It requires voluntary compliance, or else there is no enforcement mechanism against what we do. The UN Security Council? We have a veto.

Sev
06-22-2012, 03:33 PM
I agree.
However the thought of Obama being accused after all the howling about Bush is quite amusing.

The left would not know what to do with their beloved world court and united nations. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

LWW
06-23-2012, 02:57 AM
This is obviously Bush's fault.

Much like it being Bush's fault for not ordering Bin Laden's assassination when Clinton was POTUS ... although they will try to hide that pant load, the cabal recently presented that argument ... the cabal will obediently blame Bush for Obama's murder spree.

Gayle in MD
06-23-2012, 04:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree.
However the thought of Obama being accused after all the howling about Bush is quite amusing.

The left would not know what to do with their beloved world court and united nations. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

How quickly you jump to agree with one man's opinion, while ignoring multi-national cries for justice, and archivial proof, that the Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld/Rove/Libby administration of corruption, and their Repiglican NEOCONS, committed multiple war crimes?

What could possibly be more partisan than to ignore facts, proven, undeniable FACTS, documented in official NSA documents, which were hidden from the public by George Bush, and his Repiglican blank check congress, for years, and for obvious reasons, including the FACT that they broke multiple national and international laws, over the course of eight years, and allowed an attack on our shores, that they KNEW they could have prevented.

Those who supported the president who lied this country into invading and occupying Iraq, and then failed to provide our soldiers with decent equipment, and failed yet again to provide them decent health care and support when they came home, sick, ill and injured, physically and mentally, can never recover from the shame of their denials, regardless of anything else.

G.

Soflasnapper
06-23-2012, 10:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree.
However the thought of Obama being accused after all the howling about Bush is quite amusing.

The left would not know what to do with their beloved world court and united nations. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

Obama is acting well within the illegal parameters that are well precedented for American presidents. Cf: Grenada, Panama, Tripoli air strikes, Clinton's Kosovo war, etc.

What Bush did uniquely among American presidents is go WAY BEYOND the normal level of illegality (for the post-WW II world and the ratified UN General Charter) to what amounted to the newly described (at Nuremburg) greatest war crime of them all-- aggressive war dressed up as preventative war.

No American president has done that post-WW II, although the Mexican-American war and the Spanish-American wars amounted to about that same thing.

Gayle in MD
06-23-2012, 11:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree.
However the thought of Obama being accused after all the howling about Bush is quite amusing.

The left would not know what to do with their beloved world court and united nations. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

Obama is acting well within the illegal parameters that are well precedented for American presidents. Cf: Grenada, Panama, Tripoli air strikes, Clinton's Kosovo war, etc.

What Bush did uniquely among American presidents is go WAY BEYOND the normal level of illegality (for the post-WW II world and the ratified UN General Charter) to what amounted to the newly described (at Nuremburg) greatest war crime of them all-- aggressive war dressed up as preventative war.

No American president has done that post-WW II, although the Mexican-American war and the Spanish-American wars amounted to about that same thing. </div></div>

Bush did loads of things which were an abuse of his presidential power, like using 176 signing statements to basically ignore congressional laws!

Trying to block the 9/11 investigataion, entirely, and even tried to cut off the funding for the investigation, when he couldn't block it?

Didn't that go to the Supreme Court?

I'm pretty sure Cheney's secret energy meetings with energy corporate heads, and his secret creation of our energy policies, went to the Supreme Court, too?

In fact, I will be surprised if the Supreme Court rules at all on the AHCA until after the election.

When you think about it, if they throw it out, Repigicans might just be worried that it would energize the left to get out the vote, and if they keep it in, it might take away some of the energy from the ignorant righties, who don't even know what is in it, but are sure they don't want it, lol, and they might not show up to vote, if they think it's all been settled, particularly since, truth be told, most of them really don't like Romney in the first place.

G.

Sev
06-23-2012, 06:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree.
However the thought of Obama being accused after all the howling about Bush is quite amusing.

The left would not know what to do with their beloved world court and united nations. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

How quickly you jump to agree with one man's opinion, while ignoring multi-national cries for justice, and archivial proof, that the Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld/Rove/Libby administration of corruption, and their Repiglican NEOCONS, committed multiple war crimes?

What could possibly be more partisan than to ignore facts, proven, undeniable FACTS, documented in official NSA documents, which were hidden from the public by George Bush, and his Repiglican blank check congress, for years, and for obvious reasons, including the FACT that they broke multiple national and international laws, over the course of eight years, and allowed an attack on our shores, that they KNEW they could have prevented.

Those who supported the president who lied this country into invading and occupying Iraq, and then failed to provide our soldiers with decent equipment, and failed yet again to provide them decent health care and support when they came home, sick, ill and injured, physically and mentally, can never recover from the shame of their denials, regardless of anything else.

G.
</div></div>

And yet there was no impeachment of Bush. It would seem if all the illegalities were there the democrats would have went for it.

Sev
06-23-2012, 06:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree.
However the thought of Obama being accused after all the howling about Bush is quite amusing.

The left would not know what to do with their beloved world court and united nations. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

Obama is acting well within the illegal parameters that are well precedented for American presidents. Cf: Grenada, Panama, Tripoli air strikes, Clinton's Kosovo war, etc.

What Bush did uniquely among American presidents is go WAY BEYOND the normal level of illegality (for the post-WW II world and the ratified UN General Charter) to what amounted to the newly described (at Nuremburg) greatest war crime of them all-- aggressive war dressed up as preventative war.

No American president has done that post-WW II, although the Mexican-American war and the Spanish-American wars amounted to about that same thing. </div></div>

Sure he is. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
And if the international court and United Nations disagrees?

Oh yes I forgot they only have prevue over republican presidents. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/whistle.gif

Please dont get me wrong these people need to die. However if your not in least concerned about collateral damage just use a neutron bomb and get all of them at once rather than pussy footing around.

Soflasnapper
06-24-2012, 11:13 AM
And yet there was no impeachment of Bush. It would seem if all the illegalities were there the democrats would have went for it.

That's because plenty of top Democrats were complicit, on behalf of their major controlling influence from money and media influence.

Same reason Dukakis couldn't make the S&L debacle a campaign issue in '88 against then-VP Bush. As his VP 'Lord' Lloyd Bentsen explained to him, 'Mike, this is not a winning issue for Democrats.' Why? Because the Democrats were also up to their ears in involvement with these frauds and crimes. Bentsen knew from direct experience, as the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee (where he charged about $1,000 a head for 'lunch with the chairman'! from bank lobbyists).

Soflasnapper
06-24-2012, 11:16 AM
Sure he is.
And if the international court and United Nations disagrees?

Oh yes I forgot they only have prevue over republican presidents.

The international court and the UN have NOT disagreed to this date, so far as I know. (Whereas then UN Secretary did pronounce the Iraq war to be illegal under international law and the General Charter binding treaty.)

But no, no American president, of any party, is bound by those bodies, because we have never allowed that as a country. Lacking enforceable jurisdiction, or any jurisdiction at all, those bodies' opinions have moral force only, not any binding legal force.

Gayle in MD
06-24-2012, 11:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lacking enforceable jurisdiction </div></div>

Which is why they can't leave the country!

Love it!

G.

Soflasnapper
06-24-2012, 01:16 PM
This is true.

Under the universal jurisdiction concept, each or any of the signators to these conventions may bring charges against such suspected violators, saving only that they are able to get them in their custody.

So, while it is extremely unlikely for any such country to assert such an arrest on a sitting US president, that is not quite so true for ex-presidents, and especially not for former cabinet officials.

Sev
06-24-2012, 02:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sure he is.
And if the international court and United Nations disagrees?

Oh yes I forgot they only have prevue over republican presidents.

The international court and the UN have NOT disagreed to this date, so far as I know. (Whereas then UN Secretary did pronounce the Iraq war to be illegal under international law and the General Charter binding treaty.)

But no, no American president, of any party, is bound by those bodies, because we have never allowed that as a country. Lacking enforceable jurisdiction, or any jurisdiction at all, those bodies' opinions have moral force only, not any binding legal force.

</div></div>

Ironic that moral force comes through a body composed of dictators and all sorts of individuals guilty of crimes against humanity.

Sev
06-24-2012, 02:09 PM
Dangerous game trying to grab an ex US president.
A country might find cruise missile in the midst of their governing body.

Gayle in MD
06-25-2012, 08:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sure he is.
And if the international court and United Nations disagrees?

Oh yes I forgot they only have prevue over republican presidents.

The international court and the UN have NOT disagreed to this date, so far as I know. (Whereas then UN Secretary did pronounce the Iraq war to be illegal under international law and the General Charter binding treaty.)

But no, no American president, of any party, is bound by those bodies, because we have never allowed that as a country. Lacking enforceable jurisdiction, or any jurisdiction at all, those bodies' opinions have moral force only, not any binding legal force.

</div></div>

Ironic that moral force comes through a body composed of dictators and all sorts of individuals guilty of crimes against humanity. </div></div>

Quite wrong. These are international humanitarian watch groups, in many cases, from a range of countries, organized to prevent, or punish those who commit human atrocities in the world, or break International Peace Treaties.

G.