Re: Judgement at Malaysian hearing may help push case at ICC; Obama in violation for not pursuing indictment

Obama isnt guilty of any crimes.


Who brought charges against Clinton?

On May 31, 5:04 pm, geoffrey theist <gtheist...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i would hope obama is not stupid enough to let a US president   be tried in
> an international court.first of  all to answer lews question it would open
> the way for obama himself to be tried in an international court weakening
> US sovereinty which would make him a traitor in violation of US LAWS. not
> to mention the domestic political damage to the democrats it would be
> disastrous.
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:05 AM, OccupySpring <soprano.olivi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > Francis Boyle is a Professor of Law at the University of llinois
> > School of Law, where he currently teaches courses on Public
> > International Law and International Human Rights.  * I would say he is
> > the EXPERT on this issue*
>
> > JAY: So how were you able to get something going at the ICC, and where
> > is it at?
>
> > BOYLE: Right. Well, numerous complaints have been filed against Bush
> > and the rest of them at the International Criminal Court, but they got
> > nowhere, because the United States government is not a party to the
> > Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court. And I was the first
> > one to figure out a way around this conundrum by filing a complaint
> > against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Bybee, Yoo, Tenet,
> > and Rice for their policy of so-called extraordinary rendition, which,
> > as I pointed out to the ICC, is really a euphemism for the enforced
> > disappearance of human beings and torture, both of which are Rome
> > Statutory crimes. And as I pointed out to the ICC, these defendants
> > have committed Rome Statutory crimes in Rome party states. Indeed most
> > of Europe, where these extraordinary renditions in part took place,
> > are parties to the Rome statute, as well as Afghanistan. And therefore
> > I argued to the ICC that the court did have jurisdiction to prosecute
> > them and should exercise that jurisdiction.
>
> > JAY: Well, how has the ICC responded to your arguments?
>
> > BOYLE: They responded to me saying they gave me a docket number, they
> > were inquiring into the matter, and they would get back to me in
> > writing
>
> > JAY: Right. Now, what is the obligation, if any, on the Obama
> > administration in regards to all of this? I mean, when President Obama
> > was elected, he said it's time to look forward, not back, which, you
> > know, a lot of people have suggested that would mean no crimes of any
> > kind would ever be punished, 'cause it's always happened already. But
> > is there any legal obligation on the Obama administration to
> > investigate/prosecute? And if so, the fact that they haven't, what
> > does that mean?
>
> > BOYLE: Yes, the Obama administration has all along had an obligation
> > to prosecute Bush and the rest of them under the Convention against
> > Torture, including U.S. implementing legislation for that convention,
> > making torture a crime, a felony, and in some circumstances punishable
> > by death if death has occurred, which it has, although I don't support
> > the death penalty. But it does give you an idea of the severity of the
> > crimes. And also the Obama administration has an obligation to
> > prosecute these individuals under the four Geneva conventions of 1949,
> > including the U.S. implementing legislation, the U.S. War Crimes Act.
> > So there is an obligation by Obama to prosecute. Perhaps in a second
> > term they might. We'll just have to see what happens.
>
> > You are correct to indicate that so far they said they were looking to
> > the forward and not to the past. I pointed out then to the ICC
> > prosecutor that this is definitive proof that the Obama administration
> > is not going to prosecute at this time and therefore satisfies the
> > element known as subsidiarity, which requires the ICC to defer to the
> > national state for prosecution before the ICC steps in. And if you
> > already have Obama and Holder saying they're not going to prosecute,
> > that satisfies that requirement and puts it firmly in the hands of the
> > ICC.
>
> > JAY: And is the Obama administration then itself in violation of the
> > law by not pursuing this?
>
> > BOYLE: That's correct. It's clearly in violation of the Convention
> > against Torture and the four Geneva conventions of 1949, and, I regret
> > to report, technically this would make them accessories after the fact
> > to these offenses.
>
> >http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3...
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en