Quote:
|
The United States chief prosecutor at Nuremberg declared to the world in his closing statement at the trial of the principle Nazi war criminals, that "We charge unlawful aggression but we are not trying the motives, hopes, or frustrations which may have led Germany to resort to aggressive war as an instrument of policy. The law, unlike politics, does not concern itself with the good or evil in the status quo, nor with the merits of the grievances against it. It merely requires that the status quo be not attacked by violent means and that policies be not advanced by war.
|
-Robert H. Jackson
That is an interesting quote, and there is no denying that Robert H. Jackson was a man of many talents. But, if we are to base our arguments here at least in part on Justice Jackson - as Host would have us do, apparently - it is important to remember that current international law does not even offer a definition of aggression that could be applied to any trial of US citizens involved in the Iraq War. At least, I don't THINK that it does...it's on the books, but it's vague as vague can be.
The US - spanning years and multiple Administrations - has effectively spurned many of the ideas of Jackson regarding international law. I'm not saying whether this is good or bad, I'm just stating facts as they appear to me from official US policy stances over the years.
On another note, I fail to see why this topic is repeatedly jammed like a finger in my eye, and with such accusatory language. It's becoming insulting. The arguments presented here will most likely change NOT ONE SINGLE OPINION, and yet posters persevere? Haven't we reached a point where we have tired of the slick, sarcastic language, the information overload, and the attempts to use the English language to "one-up" perceived rivals on this forum?
The problem is that everyone who supports investigations on the Administration and Iraq needs to get someone who is willing to gather the evidence - THAT WILL STAND UP IN COURT UNDER SCRUTINY - and then get the indictments out! I have said it before and will say it again - I would support the rulings of a US court on any such investigation - even if it meant that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, etc. took a trip to Leavenworth as a result. I would hope that all of my fellow Republicans/Bush supporters would agree?
But you had better hurry, because these damn investigations take time, and there's always the very real possibility of Presidential pardons when the next person takes office. Hillary Clinton might not go the pardon route, but I could see Giuliani or Powell doing so in a hearbeat.