Of course they should. But who is this Nuremberg prosecutor? Why? Well, I think "Of course it is; we lost 50 million to understand that," but even if there's ostensible debate, shouldn't we be about a jurisprudence process that includes the world regarding that question? Ferenccz thinks so. Bush? Eh, not so much... Yeah, too bad. But why? Well, I am too; but a world court is better in this matter than a local court. See point one, here. By anyone, over any time scale, for any reason. For us, the question remains: Is aggressive war the supreme international crime, or not? If so, what are we prepared to do?
I think the idea of pre-emption as legal is a dangerous precedent to set. If a country feels that the US will attack then all they need to do is claim the Bush Doctrine of Pre-emptive War and fire away. Of course the Nuremburg Trials already took care of that notion. Bushco foreign policy is not making us more safe, is not promoting peace or democracy around the world, and is a disaster. The AUMF says Bush has to work through the UN Security Council and he did not do that. I think he is in violation of that law and UN Resolution 1441. The idea that we would even codify invading the Netherlands is mind boggling.
Just making a decision to no longer allow anything this Administration odes boggle my mind allows one to deal with on the terms nad at the level at which it demands, and to move, in every way, to reject it accordingly.
if starting wars is a crime then why was the Soviet Union not accused of having a hand in starting WWII? not to mention their other crimes during the war that went unpunished Nurenburg was as much about politics as it was about justice
For you, is the launching of an aggressive war the supreme international crime, or not? If so, what do we do about those who do that now? If not, what is?
anther question, where was this giant of judicial wisdom after Bush I invaded Iraq the first time? where were the calls to have Saddam tried for war crimes then? it seems to me that he only threw in Saddam into this to make his attack on Bush II seem legit i do not think that W.Bush's invasion of Iraq was an act of aggressive warmaking it was aggressive and it was war but i think it was justifed in the following way after the first war, Saddam was allowed to remain in power if he obeyed certain conditions, he did not and we were justified to overthrow him and bring him to a long overdue trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity
There are a few answers to that question. I'll give a couple. First, int'l law and mechanisms have advanced quite a bit in the last 15 years. Second, and perhaps more importantly, GHWB's invasion was a proportional (maybe) response to an aggressive war. The second half of that would be a decent argument if the war was justified that way, not ex post. Still, I have a hard time buying that justification when there are several other leaders who are worse.
so since we cannot deal with everyone at once we should do nothing? that was one of the reason for the invasion, others became more news worthy and made better slogans, (WMD was/is a favorite) would some one care to find the full list and post it?
Exactly; so understand, THAT's theethic, and the value: "Win." anything else ever offered by this group is an obfuscating lie. They just want to "win," whatever that means to them. On the anniversary of the March, it's appropriate to remember the words of a man who lost - lost his life - but ended up winning more than any of these current "leaders": MLK said "If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam." I would submit "If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read 'winning.'" IOW, the definition of "Win" is so shot through with an inability to even conceive of the ramifications of actions beyond the fiscal year and the macroeconomic post-political conglomeratocracy, that the sould of the thing is destroyed; as a cancer consumes the self, our own sense of "Winning," right now, regardless of the seven generations sensibility REQUIRED to maintain a stewardship and authentic leadership in relationship to the Earth, consumes the best parts of our own selves...