Saddam Hussein arrested

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Kramerman


why do people ALWAYS make such a big deal of this? Friends and enemies change with time and circumstance, duh - plain and simple. GET OVER IT

(and im not yelling at you Mr.Fun, im just yelling in general )

Because I find that the dictatorships United States installed in other countries is something that I believe is not necessary for our foreign policy.

I'm not sure how many millions of people have died under the rule of dictotors who are puppets of United States from the Cold War, up to today.

[Drake Tungsten]

Because I find that the dictatorships United States installed in other countries is something that I believe is not necessary for our foreign policy.

America didn't install Hussein.

[MrFun]

No, we didn't but nevertheless we slept in the same bed with him after he rose to power.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Tell us, Agathon, just how many strong men has the US installed since the end of the Cold War, and how many has it taken down or helped to take down?

It might be useful to stop living in the past.

If you are going to blame the cold war, try how many "interventions" there were before 1918.

And - "installed"; "actively supported" - what's the difference?

AFAIK and it is not proven - they had a hand in trying to get rid of Chavez in Venezuela.

other than that - pick from this list (some are debatable):

The "regime" in Colombia.
That ******* who got thrown out of Bolivia.
Saddam Hussein (if the CW ended in 1989)
Musharraf.
Hamed Karzai (although he's not that strong and not that bad AFAIK).
That ***** in the Phillipines.
The Saudi Royal Family.
Kings Hussein and Abdullah of Jordan.
Mubarak.
Putin (democrat my ass!).
That ****er Fujimori (you know the torturer and mass sterilizer).
Suharto, the fascist butcher of Indonesia (although he lost support for not doing what he was told).

I don't know about that former nutcase in the Congo (Kabila, not Mobutu).

How's that?

[Cyclotron]

We installed Putin? That's a new one to me.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Because I find that the dictatorships United States installed in other countries is something that I believe is not necessary for our foreign policy.

America didn't install Hussein.

Did, or at least provide substantial assistance for a long period of time.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
We installed Putin? That's a new one to me.

You could at least have read the whole post.

I quote:

"installed"; "actively supported" - what's the difference?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why did you change the subject of my statement to anwser a different question?

I didn't. 'War crimes' is not part of the original jurisdiction of the SCOTUS set out by the Constitution. In fact it is very limited, just to certain cases. Everything else the SCOTUS has appelate jurisdiction, and Congress can take that away.

the question is do US lower courts have subject matter jurisdiction to hear criminal trials for violation of international treaties on the laws of war, etc., without an act of Congress.

Yes. As stated, international law is considered federal common law (see Bergman v. De Sieyes). Therefore, US courts have subject matter jurisdiction on international law issues where the US has jurisdiction.

As stated in the Paquete Habana: "International Law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. For this purpose, where there is no treaty and controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations..." (175 US at 700).

Of course customary international law can be trumped by later statutes or treaties (and is under the Constitution, always).

if the war crimes tribunal was set up by Congress, the Supremes could have reviewed it

Only for habeas concerns. Military tribunal decisions are usually not reviewable by the Supreme Court for anything else.

AFAIK, no international treaty is self-executing in the US.

COMPLETELY incorrect. Read Foster and Elam v. Neilson, where court decided part of the treaty was self-executing while another part was not. So yes, some international treaties are self-executing in the US.

In this case, the Supremes state they have limited jurisdiction to review such cases under habeas corpus.

As stated, yes. Because tribunals are under a different organization than Federal Courts. The Supremes can only review whether they follow the Constitution (which means, basically, only a habeaus review).


Ned, you are incorrect on these things. I just took a final on this stuff. Just accept it .

[DaShi]

I see we've reached the bash America part of the thread now. Certain posters now feel safe to post here.

[MrFun]

I'm not bashing my own country just for the sake of bashing -- forgive me if I have a consciousness that I get angry over American-backed dictatorships who have murdered millions of people.

[DaShi]

I think we were all angry at Saddam.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Agathon
You could at least have read the whole post.

So anybody we get along with on occasion is essentially someone we installed? I'm having trouble making that particular logic jump.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon


If you are going to blame the cold war, try how many "interventions" there were before 1918.

And - "installed"; "actively supported" - what's the difference?

AFAIK and it is not proven - they had a hand in trying to get rid of Chavez in Venezuela.

other than that - pick from this list (some are debatable):

The "regime" in Colombia.
That ******* who got thrown out of Bolivia.
Saddam Hussein (if the CW ended in 1989)
Musharraf.
Hamed Karzai (although he's not that strong and not that bad AFAIK).
That ***** in the Phillipines.
The Saudi Royal Family.
Kings Hussein and Abdullah of Jordan.
Mubarak.
Putin (democrat my ass!).
That ****er Fujimori (you know the torturer and mass sterilizer).
Suharto, the fascist butcher of Indonesia (although he lost support for not doing what he was told).

I don't know about that former nutcase in the Congo (Kabila, not Mobutu).

How's that?

Total bull****, as usual. How many came to power after 1990, and how many can be hung on American backed coups? I asked, how many strong men installed by the US. You have failed to answer the question.

Oh, and btw, when trying to exert influence in a region, you might have to do business with the people who are there. Which would you prefer? They accept the people in power and deal with them, or they don't and install their own people? You can't criticise the US for accepting local potentates AND critcise them for installing their own, can you?

As far as pre 1918, get your head out of your ass and start looking at how the whole world acted back then, at least the Empire you and I both come from, not to mention the other Europeans.

Oh, and btw, some of the tossers you mention were ELECTED by the people in their own countries. How the hell are you going to hang that on the CIA? Oh yeah, I know already, I guess they exported the chad issue before pulling it at home, right?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon


And - "installed"; "actively supported" - what's the difference?

it makes a big difference in reality and in perception to the common man. I think this is why the left commonly equates the two so as to imply that United States actually installed all the dictators of the world.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Ned, you are incorrect on these things. I just took a final on this stuff. Just accept it .

Well report back, Professor Imran, whether you passed.