 |
| |
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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).
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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  .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:32
|
|
quote:
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 bullshit, 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
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:32
|
|
Well I looks like Kofi Annan is really poking his nose into to this issue. He's now said the Saddam war crimes trials cannot include the death penalty to the extent that they be sanctioned by the UN!
"Annan stressed that any trial for Saddam must meet international standards and he reiterated the United Nations' longstanding opposition to the death penalty in any U.N.-sanctioned tribunal.
"As secretary-general, as the U.N., as an organization, we are not going to now turn around and support the death penalty," he said.
The secretary-general said he had not studied the Iraqi Governing Council's plans for a court to try members of Saddam's regime so he couldn't say whether it would meet international standards. If it doesn't, he said, the Iraqis could consider asking for outside help."
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20.../D7VFAPI80.html
The last two days seem to me that both Joe Lieberman and George Bush were quite insistent that the death penalty be on the table. I'm quite sure that the Iraqis themselves want to put Saddam to death and may be quite a bit bothered by having to go through the formalities of trial.
We are headed to a confrontation.
Last edited by Ned on 16-12-2003 at 13:15
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
Total bullshit, 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? |
NYE, dont bother, he doesnt understand reality and the fact that a free nation has to what it has to do to make sure it can preserve its way of life.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-12-2003 11:52
) 
|
|