Welcome to PatsFans.com

Right-wing paranoia seems a little funny now

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Feb 14, 2009.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,416
    Likes Received:
    226
    Ratings:
    +351 / 15 / -11

    Like freedom fries, this is another laughable example of the absurdity of the right-wing Congress during Bush.

    ABC News: Will Obama Reverse 'Invasion of the Hague' Act?

    In 2002, Congress passed a law enabling United States forces to unilaterally storm into peaceful Holland to liberate American soldiers held for war crimes.

    Coming in the early days of the war on terrorists, and as the International Criminal Court was being formed here, the measure provoked controversy and seemed to the Dutch – stout US allies – an absurd example of America's "with us or against us" foreign policy.

    The law is still on the books.

    Formally titled the American Service Members Protection Act, the measure is widely and derisively known here as the Invasion of The Hague Act.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2009
  2. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,508
    Likes Received:
    71
    Ratings:
    +227 / 6 / -2

    #91 Jersey

    I think theres still a plan to invade Canada too. But that came Before 9/11....... Just sayin
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2009
  3. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    I heard that there is another one on the books: "Invade the Vatican" meant for the FBI to go get child molesters who are being sheltered there.

    I never heard about the Hague law. That's wierd. As if the Dutch (or anyone else) would accept US troops as prisoners. No troops of any army have ever been brought to the Hague as war criminals, have they? I thought war criminals have been and can only be officers and politicians who have given orders to commit war crimes. Technically, war crimes occur whenever there is a war. The term "war crimes" is itself, redundant.

    Hardly any soldier goes into battle expecting to be involved in a war crime. Officers and politicians are definitely capable of it because they are the ones who know what a "war crime" is.
     
  4. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,508
    Likes Received:
    71
    Ratings:
    +227 / 6 / -2

    #91 Jersey

    No i remember lower level people being prosecuted in the Hague for war crimes in the Balkens. Serbian guards and militia.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2009
  5. KontradictioN

    KontradictioN Do you even lift? PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    27,965
    Likes Received:
    774
    Ratings:
    +2,416 / 33 / -54

    No Jersey Selected

    God forbid we piss off the mighty Dutch.
     
  6. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,334
    Likes Received:
    255
    Ratings:
    +656 / 7 / -2

    It's kinda dumb since all we'd have to do is bribe the Dutch with a promise of not to attack them. It worked for the Serbs in Srebrenca.
     
  7. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Oh...well, fukc them too!
     
  8. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    what a surprise that a born-again religious wacko administration would set forth such repressive, isolating, fear-promoting policy against a symbol of global justice...

    what a dark period we've just emerged from... unfortunately, we're all scarred for decades...

    memo to the American public: No more presidents from Texas... ever...
     
  9. Stokes

    Stokes In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Ah Yes Patters and PC, this was clearly all the doing of the Bush administration and the right wingers in Congress. In fact, if you check the library of Congress records on the vote you can see the list of Senators voting for the measure is a veritable who's who of reactionary conservatives, including:

    Biden, D, DE
    Boxer, D, CA
    Clinton, D, NY
    Dodd, D, CT
    Durbin, D, IL
    Edwards, D, NC
    Kerry, D, MA
    Reid, D, NV
    Schumer, D, NY

    The house vote is more of the same, here is the link:

    Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

    This BIPARTISAN action by Congress was passed in response to creation of a war crimes court (the ICC) not recognized by the United States which could have tried and executed US servicemen. The fear was/is that this court could be controlled by ultraliberal elements in Europe to punish US military for political or PR reasons. It was a good move to pass such a measure to clarify that the ICC holds no legal authority over our military. It does not outline any military strategy against the Hague, simply authorizes the President to use any means necessary to rescue US or allied military personnel from prosecution in a court we do not recognize. Or maybe you think it is a good idea to let one court decide what parts of US military policy are OK and what parts are prosecutable?
     
  10. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Good one... not that we haven't seen the tired "dems voted for it too" angle a few hundred times already... Meanwhile, how many of them were members of the WHIGs team that duped Congress with fraudulent intel in the first place?... Yeah, sorry... That was a neoCON initiative entirely. ... Further, why can't the U.S. recognize the ICC? Bitter about how the Nazis were handled or something?

    I fault every Dem senator for not doing his job, whether its this vote, or the Patriot Act, or the Iraq resolution. But many did do their job. Meanwhile, almost ALL con men lawmakers were on board with Bush League initiatives. Get it yet?
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2009
  11. Stokes

    Stokes In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Fraudulent intel? About the ICC? You stated this was the work of "a born-again religious wacko administration," which was incorrect. This was passed through Congress, not an executive order, and was voted for by most prominent Dems.

    As to your suggestion that all the Republicans were on board with this here's a partial list of "Nay" votes:

    Brownback (R-KS)
    Bunning (R-KY)
    Gramm (R-TX)
    Hatch (R-UT)
    Kyl (R-AZ)
    Lott (R-MS)
    McCain (R-AZ)
    Santorum (R-PA)
    Sessions (R-AL)

    I would also point out that you said we've emerged from a dark period? Unfortunately I'd venture to guess that 80% of the people that passed this bill are still in Congress.

    Further I strongly disagree with allowing an international body which can be subject to political pressure or public opinion determining what actions of ours are legal or illegal. Historically it was Clinton that began the opposition to the ICC, approved it on his last day in office but recommended that Congress NOT pass it until the UN had made changes to protect American interests, which it never did. The vote in 2002 was consistent with the Clinton position and was in response to the increasing likelyhood that implementation of the ICC would be ratified without US approval. The terms for which an individual, from a foot soldier right up to the President, can be prosecuted are nebulous, including what the court determines as "aggression." With illegal action so loosely defined it is totally appropriate to not only oppose creation of the ICC, but to send notice that prosecution of US personnel will not be tolerated.

    One more thing, no more Presidents from Texas? Um, maybe he wasn't your guy at the end, but for a time weren't you strongly supporting Ron Paul? Time for some homework for you!

    Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  12. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    No, instead, it seems you're fully in favor of the United States -- which can be subject to political pressure -- determining what actions of ours are legal or illegal. It's interesting that the right is so in favor of globalization and multi-national corporate profit, yet when it comes to holding our commanders accountable for war crimes, well, we can't have the world involved in that.

    What I was talking about was the overall mechanism which made these modern war crimes even possible. You can play a semantics game if you like, but this mess all eminated from a neo-CONSERVATIVE initiative.

    I knew someone would punt to Ron Paul the moment I hit send. It's a lame attempt to miss the point and pretend there's an inconsistency. I'm well aware of where Paul is from.

    While it's largely a joke, I stand by what I said. No presidents from Texas. You'll notice that, while I supported some of the policies of Paul, I withdrew my support for him when he refused to break from the repression party. I can support Libertarianism without voting for a man who wouldn't go to the mat.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2009
  13. Stokes

    Stokes In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I am fully in favor the United States determining that an international court has been set up without a clearly defined set of guiding principles. Including something as nebulous as "aggression" as illegal action makes the ICC an unacceptable forum for US citizens and allies to be tried. Some think that all war is an illegal action, and that is a defensible position, but I don't want those people determining the fate of US soldiers. The US has tried for years now to make the ICC an acceptable forum for war crimes trials by making changes such as more clearly defining what is an illegal action beyond "aggression." Thus far the UN has refused. Its not just a war crimes tribunal, it is an international court which could prosecute any military action it deems inappropriate. I don't think even Woodrow Wilson envisioned giving over control of US military policy to a court in which we have little or no say.

    In the case of political pressure, the difference is that it is political pressure on the people WE elect that results in military action. OUR representatives determine OUR policy, not outsiders who may not have the US's best interests at heart.

    Let's say that a previous administration has done things the new administration thinks to be criminal (maybe we can think of an example?). There is already a mechanism in place for prosecuting them internationally. The current admin could submit the case to the International Court of Justice, which is already in place to handle such matters. To me that is good enough until the ICC is more strictly defined as a true war crimes tribunal.

    Speaking of globalization, I'm not seeing the inconsistency of being OK with that but against the ICC, but I will say that a better focus for the UN is on ensuring fair play among the world's economies as economic might (and trickery) becomes an even more important tool of power than war itself (and look at how well China is playing the game for example).

    I just thought it was funny. I knew you must have thought of him about 2 seconds after posting that. I will stand up for Texas though and say there's plenty of good people there. Ike was from Texas and I think he was pretty good. I'm not prepared to write them all off at this point. With that kind of thinking you might also rule out Arkansas (Clinton) and Georgia (Carter)! Besides, Jeb Bush lives in Florida so I guess you can feel OK about voting for him in 2012.:D
     
  14. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    good points... i'll concede...

    but i still say no more Texas presidents... :cool: ...

    even Eisenhower had Mossadeq and Bay of Pigs
     
  15. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,673
    Likes Received:
    139
    Ratings:
    +378 / 46 / -7

    #75 Jersey

    It seems to me that all of the fears that Obama is going to be a giant socialist liberal, spending this country into ruin, seem to be pretty much right on target.
     
  16. Stokes

    Stokes In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Oh OK, I'll go with you on the ban, especially since Mitt Romney can apparently be from Massachusetts, Utah, AND Michigan, and Hillary Clinton can be from New York. We'll just move the leading bible thumping criminal executing chickenhawk into another state a couple years before the election!
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>