Oh, wait–I’m thinking of a bj in the Oval Office. Nevermind.

If Obama tried to run the country to his conscience, they wouldn’t need assassins. The simple truth is that most humans are not really smart – or nice. Ignore that and them and they will bury you. He’s just a man, so far mostly his own man. The only realistic thing he can do given the circumstances is limit the damage.

I’m not trying to pick a fight, but I sincerely want to know what you, and other bOINGERs, think.

Seems to me that the question of legitimacy central to this distinction might be precisely what is up for grabs in some armed struggles.

I can’t see the US ever handing up one of its (former) officials to an international court, though. Does anyone know if it’s been done before?

Really? So he is moving from center right to the center? Or did you actually believe the “Obama is a liberal” media frame?

YET.

You can’t pardon someone who has not yet been arrested, indicted, impeached, tried, or convicted.

Where’ve you been? This administration does things pre-emptively.

I would love to see Cheney manacled and marched off in front of a jury for his crimes. He’d probably get off, but the pictures would be priceless.

What we need to do as a global movement is to start having 500,000+ people protests again, once this proto-totalitarian regime leaves on 10 January 009. These protests will be specifically organized around the concept of holding said regime accountable.

It’ll be like the vibe on election night after McCain ceded, except it won’t end until these hateful men are in chains.

But more directly on the topic: Wow, I didn’t even expect things to get this far. I guess the only way anything is really going to happen is with the support of the senior staff of the armed forces themselves. This looks possible, at least.

We are all going to die someday: you, me, terrorists, Donald Rumsfeld, Paris Hilton, all of us. Are we so afraid of dying that we will resort to torture to stave off some (maybe) imminent attack? If anyone insists it “isn’t torture” then you should allow yourself to undergo those procedures yourself, and see if you retain that opinion afterward. We didn’t torture during the cold war, and yet in the USSR the KGB/GRU/NKVD/et al tortured on a daily basis as a matter of state security. Aren’t we, the USA, better than that?

If we are indeed better than that, I can see only one way to prove it: bring charges against all those responsible. So congress found Rumsfeld to be the instigator, are they going to do anything about it? To do nothing is to stand by and ignore a crime, and makes us (or more precisely our congress) complicit.

In the language of the Geneva Conventions, the rules they describe apply to 1) civilians and 2) those with combatant status.

Convention I, Article 13, Sections 1, 2 & 6 define combatants as 1) members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, or 2) members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements, provided that they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war as described within the Conventions.

After the collapse of Iraq government and the dissolution of its armed forces, #1 no longer applies, so the insurgents must fall under the second set of requirements. Convention III, Article 4, Sections 2 & 6 reiterate these requirements. At bare minimum, achieving combatant status requires that an opposing Power carry its arms openly. This is emphasized in Protocol I, Article 44, Sec. 3.

“sometimes the state is involved in criminal matters, but you have to obey orders”

From the Nuremberg Priciples
Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War Crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

[edit] Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

From the text of the pardon:

“As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and on the discretion of the authorized prosecutor.”

The key words here being “whether or not he shall be”.

I think this is where extradition comes in; even in signatories to the International Court, the court can request a country extradite a particular person, but in the end, its up to country to make the decision to extradite them.

I don’t know where the Constitution covers such things, since its a treaty, I would think its up to the legislative branch to agree to and the executive branch to enforce. I don’t think it falls under the jurisdiction of the Judicial Branch. But, someone can correct me on that, and be gentle, my Constitutional Law is pretty basic.

Cccccccrap.