Dana
> You are most likely right. Didn't the US make some big deal about
> exempting its soldiers? Still. An article like that is devastating.
> And look at this:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1212755,00.html
>
> It's been a while since I was in Britain, but, correct me if I am
> wrong, the Guardian is not exactly run by wild-eyed liberals. I do not
> think that the Bush administration realizes the extent of the fiasco.
>
> Dana
>
> >Hmm..
> >
> >Never even considered war crimes.
> >
> >And I don't think it will stick. Unless International Law really
> does
> >apply to the United States.
> >Since the US is the most powerful country in the world and has shown
> >it's not afraid to use that power any way it sees fit,I doubt it
> will
> >bound itself to the archaic notion of 'international law'.
> >
> >So there'll be no war crimes tribunals.
> >Of course.if this were some other country,
> >then of course these people and their commanders would possibly be
> tried
> >
> >for war crimes.
> >
> >But the good ole boys are safe as per usual.
> >
> >-Gel
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: dana tierney
> >http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1104163.htm
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >Version: 7.0.241 / Virus Database: 262.9.17 - Release Date:
5/7/2004
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
