On Jan 28, 2009, at 12:03 AM, David Cake wrote: > At 3:29 PM -0800 27/1/09, Roger Howard wrote: >> All along we're gonna be up against the following: >> >> 1. Defendants had it on good legal advice that what they were doing >> was >> within the law; of course, between two lawyers and a judge you >> could have >> 4 opinions about what's legal, but this will be a fundamental >> defense. >> 2. Barring that defense, there's always the claims of extraordinary >> powers >> by the Executive, particularly during a time of war. >> >> Anyway, as usual I think we're on the same side, and quibbling >> about the >> details. I have no idea what the process should be or will be, but >> I hope >> there is a process involving extensive documentation about what >> occurred >> and who authorized it, and if criminal wrongdoing is shown (which I >> would >> expect unless it's a complete whitewash, which is possible) then I >> would >> expect nothing less than trials. If the investigations are complete >> then >> bring on the indictments. > > The latter, at least, should make no difference to the UN. > War crimes are international law - just because your commander in > chief orders you to commit something that you know to be a violation > of international law doesn't get you off the hook, 'I was just > following orders' is no excuse. I should have thought that principle > was pretty well established by Nuremberg.
It should make no difference but it does and even the article that started this thread said that it does. Bush and Cheney aren't going to be arrested while traveling in Europe but former mid-level bureaucrats from their administration might be. -- No matter how far you have gone on the wrong road, turn back. -Turkish proverb _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
