Re: Why I'm Against Impeachment
- From: "Amused" <jamescopeland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:36:47 -0600
"Ouroboros_Rex" <its@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:fpf9to$ivu$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Amused" <jamescopeland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:fpf2ki$sns$1@xxxxxxxxxxx"Ouroboros_Rex" <its@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:fpf0g5$fh0$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"nick c" <nchen711@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:jIsuj.5210$kD3.397@xxxxxxxxxxxBarbara Lake wrote:Yes. I want to see the criminals in Washington brought to book. I would dearly love to see Bush, Cheney, et al behind bars. I do NOT want to see Congress initiate impeachment proceedings against either of these men at this time. One, even if initiated, the Senate does not have the 2/3 needed to impeach, so it would wind up being an exercise in futility. Secondly, it would only serve as a distraction from upcoming elections upon which so many of us are pinning our hopes for multi-level change in Washington.
What I am hoping for is that charges are brought against these men once they are out of office for their crimes against humanity. And, I want those charges brought by an international tribunal separate and apart from U.S. jurisdiction.
Barbara
I'm absolutely against the use of an international tribunal being used and usurping the US court system. An international tribunal does not recognize the Constitutional rights of a US citizen. I know you hate both Bush and Cheney but to deprive a citizen of Constitutional civil rights goes much too far. I 'm surprised that you, a champion of Constitutional rights would suggest such a thing. Hate both Bush and Cheney, if such hatred brings you pleasure but don't become blinded by your hatred and don't ask to establish a precedent that will usurp the US Court system and render the Constitution useless, whenever an international tribunal wants to do so.
You have forgotten that Bush and Cheney committed offenses outside the terroritory and jurisdiction of the United States. You are essentially using a constitutionality argument to support requiring the US to harbor war criminals from prosecution by foreign victim states.
If the constitution doesn't affect the rights of prisoners in Guantanamo, it certainly doesn't affect the rights of foreign nationals elsewhere.
Nah.
Some of the European States are considering surrendering sovereignty to Brussels, but no one else is, and many of them aren't too wild about the idea.
Could you explain how this refutes, or even relates to, what I posted?
Sovereign countries do not surrender their jurisdiction to international courts, EXCEPT in very specific instances covered by treaties....(For instance, some of the conflicts over fishing rights are adjudicated by international tribunals.)
That said, the Europeans are oozing their way into a true Federal European Union, where sovereignty of the individual states would most closely resemble the sovereignty of American states.
Meanwhile Brussels, (actually Belgium to be exact) has asserted their jurisdiction over all things international.....to the point that they considered issuing an arrest warrant for Donald Rumsfeld. However, wiser heads prevailed. It's kinda like Berkley saying they're going "kick out" the Marines. Might be red meat to the Doodlebops, but no one takes them seriously.
.
- References:
- Why I'm Against Impeachment
- From: Barbara Lake
- Re: Why I'm Against Impeachment
- From: nick c
- Re: Why I'm Against Impeachment
- From: Ouroboros_Rex
- Re: Why I'm Against Impeachment
- From: Amused
- Re: Why I'm Against Impeachment
- From: Ouroboros_Rex
- Why I'm Against Impeachment
- Prev by Date: Re: Why I'm Against Impeachment
- Next by Date: Re: Allan/Janice - A Question
- Previous by thread: Re: Why I'm Against Impeachment
- Next by thread: Re: Why I'm Against Impeachment
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
