"Challenging the sovereignty of the US"

[Solly Mack]

On CNNi (TV) just now - (former)US brigadier General Janis Karpinski, giving testimonial evidence for the plaintiffs, was seated alongside Wolfgang Kaleck, the German attorney leading the attempted litigation against Rumsfeld in Germany.

The likelihood of such an action gaining ground was framed as an attempt at "challenging the sovereignty of the US"

In other words - Trying an American citizen, more especially a former government official, is "challenging the sovereignty of the US" because it interferes with the governing rights of the US to hold legal jurisdiction over their own citizens.

Think about that.

Holding an American citizen accountable in a legal proceeding that is outside America's own legal system is "challenging the sovereignty of the US"

So to charge, try and reach a verdict against Rumsfeld, by a government body that is not the US legal system, is "challenging the sovereignty of the US"


America thinks nothing about violating the sovereignty of other nations by detaining their citizens for years with "evidence" gained through torture and most without any evidence of wrong doing whatsoever(Abu Ghraib, extraordinary renditions, GTMO, secret prisons)

America thinks nothing about invading and occupying a sovereign nation for lies and trumped up evidence, while subjecting the citizens of that sovereign nation to the verdict {whims) of the US.

Yet another nation trying to hold a war criminal accountable - because the so-called respecter of human rights will not - would be "challenging the sovereignty of the US"


Maybe it's just me.

[ixion]

1. silly goose... our sovereignty is the only one that matters.

it takes precedence above all else.

God said so.

:sarcasm:

[Solly Mack]

3. Yeah - that's the message I'm getting too

[mmonk]

2. Crimes against the world community

as seen by the rest of the world is challenging their sovereignty. So the quandry.

[Solly Mack]

4. So who blinks?

[The2ndWheel]

5. Here's something for less stress

1. US
2. UN
3. Everyone else

Learn in. Live it. Love it. That's how it has been, is, and will be. Until our empire falls, obviously.

[Solly Mack]

6. I've longed lovingly nurtured the thought that empires do fall

They don't always fade away - but they do fall.

[The2ndWheel]

9. Entropy always wins, nt

[Cleita]

7. Unfortunately, as long as I can remember, America has always

been a "do as I say, not as I do" country when it comes to international relations. I believe it's a real problem that will put us in more danger down the line and really challenge our sovereignity in the future.

[Solly Mack]

8. I agree.

[Crunchy Frog]

10. Either everybody in the world has certain recognized legal rights

or nobody does. Either every country has jurisdiction over its citizens, or no country does.

Bush (and certain traitorous "Dems" have just made the decision that nobody does. Every US citizen had now better be very careful about stepping off of US soil, because every other country in the world has just as much right to arrest and detain US citizens without trial as we have to do it to their citizens.

There is no such thing as national sovereignty anymore, for ANYONE.

[Solly Mack]

11. You make an excellent point

Either the US can abide by international law (by treaty) and international customary law or US citizens can expect to be treated the same as the US treats citizens of other nations.

We are made less safe when the US violates international law and then holds itself above accountability.

[PaganPreacher]

12. It IS just you. Your "In other words" are the wrong words.

You used the words "Trying an American citizen", "to charge, try and reach a verdict against Rumsfeld, by a government body that is not the US legal system,...", and another nation trying to hold a war criminal accountable..."

No one has been charged, and no one is being tried by a government body or "another nation". You are looking at a private party's lawsuit, and acting as if it is a criminal court proceeding.

A domestic civil court in Germany has no authority against an American citizen who is not on German soil. The defendant cannot be compelled to travel to Germany to participate in the proceedings; he cannot be compelled to provide evidence or testimony; he cannot be compelled to act or fail to act in any manner by order of the court; and he cannot be compelled to pay a judgment or court costs.

Basically, the German lawsuit is an act of legal masturbation. It may feel good for awhile, but eventually you end up with a tired hand and nothing else to show for it.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[michreject]

13. I muat have missed this part

Yet another nation trying to hold a war criminal accountable - because the so-called respecter of human rights will not - would be "challenging the sovereignty of the US"


Which nation is trying to hold a war criminal accountable?

[DocSavage]

14. Its all fun and games till

say President Clinton is sued in a civil court in Bosnia for ordering military action agains Milosovik (sp?) and causing the death of civilians in a air raid. This sets a very bad precident, should not be applauded nor supported.

Suppose in 5 years, a democratic administration is in the white house, tough enviromental laws are enacted in Europe. The US does not do the same on advice of EPA. You want an enviromental group to sue the director of the EPA in civil court in say Luxumberg?