Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The disarming of the US continues.
YelliChink    5/14/2010 10:55:09 AM
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/05/11/obamas-human-rights-and-non-nuclear-utopia/ Introduced by Democratic Senators Durbin, Cardin, Feingold, Feinstein, and Leahy in June ‘09 and considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee May 6th, the Crimes Against Humanity Act would more than just ”[open] the door to demands of reciprocity from other nations that seek to prosecute US military personnel and government officials for alleged criminal acts committed anywhere in the world” by establishing “universal jurisdiction,” as Heritage argues. This piece of legislation would also: 1.domesticate all crimes against humanity as defined by the UN – including terrorism on American soil — making these crimes punishable by federal prosecutors and judges 2.afford reciprocity in other countries, subjecting our military and elected officials to – not just The Hague — but to the ”Crimes Against Humanity” laws of other countries 3.tie the hands of our elected officials and military, as every plan of action to defend our country must comply “with all of the foreign nation’s applicable laws“ 4.limit any foreseeable way for America to ever utilize its nuclear arsenal in retaliation to strikes against our homeland 5.exacerbate instability in the Middle East by signaling the non-existant threat of US retaliation in defending allies (such as Great Britain or Israel) Not only would we not retaliate, we could not. Our nuclear posture would be eliminated by institutionalizing international law. ================================================================== As a foreigner, both halves of my brain know exactly what this legislature will bring up to, and they are debating whether to feel bad or schadenfreude. The real question is, how did you people get those idiots into the Congress in the first place?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
CJH       5/15/2010 12:12:15 AM
All this makes sense as a pattern of integration into the EU laying the foundation for a owrld government.
 
As a foreigner, both halves of my brain know exactly what this legislature will bring up to, and they are debating whether to feel bad or schadenfreude. The real question is, how did you people get those idiots into the Congress in the first place?
 
I would wager that most voters are people whose entire knowledge of the world around them comes to them from a voice that comes out of a box.
 
It is pretty much a truism that if it is on TV then it must be true. And of course, the TV news people have been in love with Obama.
 
Quote    Reply

Wicked Chinchilla       5/17/2010 8:27:22 AM
I thought the prevailing talking point was that the EU was on the verge of collapse.  Now the U.S. is on a track to join them in a one world government?
 
As written by Yellichink there is both good and bad in this.  Before even beginning this post I must put a qualifier that all of this is in response to what is (I presume anyway) a very brief summary of the bill.  Considering the website it comes from is...*cough* biased, to say the least, I am taking this with a grain of salt. 
 
 I for think item #1 on Yellichink's list is a good idea.  We are the good guys, why are we afraid of holding ourselves accountable to the same laws we hold others too and decry them for violating.  Its hypocrisy that we don't do it right now.  It doesn't say that the laws will be forever pegged to what the UN decides, which is besides the point anyway because the U.S. has full control over its domestic laws anyway so we can choose to change or not enforce should a situation arise which would treat a U.S. citizen unjustly. 
 
What I do not agree with are #2, and #3.  If that is actually what this bill does than I would definitely not support those two items.  Far too many people dislike the United States irrationally to simply take on good faith they would not intentionally attempt to alter international law, or domestic law (which would be far, far easier anyway) just to arrest some Americans. 
 
4 is way to vague.  I want to know what these limits are.  Its not like we have an extremely loose set of ROE with this things anyway, and nor should we.
5 is vague too.  What does it stipulate?  (not asking anyone to post a summary for me, I may read it in my own time, just wanted to make sure no one thought I was avoiding it)
 
Quote    Reply

Photon       6/8/2010 6:47:46 PM
My four cents on committing to treaties and so on ...
 
1.  Minimalism:  Do not sign and ratify any more treaties than absolutely necessary.
 
2.  Give & take:  As a signatory of a treaty in question, you have to get something back that is in proportion to whatever commitments that you have signed to.
 
3.  A business is a business:  Do not commit to something just because it looks or feels good.  If the devil has something that you need, then you must deal with him.  On the other hand, if the angel has something that you want, then you do not have to deal with him.
 
4.  Size up the other side:  A no-brainer -- do not commit to something if you are not sure about the other side or if you lack the means of retaliation if the other side poops onto your dinner plate.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Don't Worry About It   6/9/2010 2:36:09 PM
The chance of this being passed by the US Senate is zero.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    Crimes Against Humanity Act    6/9/2010 8:05:55 PM
....here's where it gets funny, though:
 
 
Now, maybe these Lexington folks dressed up this article a tad much to imply that,
indirectly,
Obama was meaning, "America needs to sell more guns and bombs to the rest of the world",
but oh, the irony of it, anyway!
 
Funny how, when Bush was in office, people wanted to crucify him for everything wrong in the world (since it was happening on "his watch", after all).
 
So by the same token, we should be stringing up this current POTUS as well, seeing as his increase in arms sales
(or minimally, the encouragement of it, so a kind of guilt by association, or even instigating, if you will) 
would just add to more human suffering and crimes against humanity across the globe: we can dress it up by calling them weapons of "peace and deterrent" all we want,
but in the end,
they're still weapons of war, built with the intention, and to the necessary specs,
to kill, destroy, and generally inflict harm, suffering, and unwanton mayhem upon others.
 
Quote    Reply

C2       6/10/2010 8:11:35 AM

they're still weapons of war, built with the intention, and to the necessary specs,

to kill, destroy, and generally inflict harm, suffering, and unwanton mayhem upon others.


Weapons don't (normally) kill people on their own, people kill other people; which is why politics is far more dangerous than war, as it can lead to war among other equally nasty aspirations  (such as genocide).

Maybe we should start signing treaties on Strategic Targets for the Reduction of Active Politicians (STRAP)...  

 
Quote    Reply

Photon       6/11/2010 8:04:14 PM
People wage wars, not weapons by themselves.  However, people can be tempted to resort to force, if they perceive that whatever weapons that they have obtained empower them and if they feel like they have an issue worth contesting violently about.  It takes two to tango together.
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       6/11/2010 11:21:58 PM
I thought the prevailing talking point was that the EU was on the verge of collapse.  Now the U.S. is on a track to join them in a one world government?
 
The people doing this don't care.
 
Quote    Reply

doctor       6/18/2010 10:35:35 PM
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics