I don't think you are getting what I'm saying here.. If Germany tries Rumsfeld and finds him guilty then it would be a conviction just like any other conviction. BUT... The problem is that Rumsfeld will never actually suffer any consequences of that conviction because the US will never allow him to be extradicted and he will not be put in prison here for a conviction from a German court. Now, if he was tried in the US, like Hussein is being tried in Iraq, then he would suffer the consequence because he's an American citizen. If Hussein, being an Iraqi, was being tried by France then the same thing would happen. He would suffer no consequences from the conviction because he's not a French citizen and they'd never be granted the power to extradict him. I think my using quotes around the word conviction created some confusion or something.
or something? of course it created confusion. it always has. a conviction is a conviction no matter what. there is no "conviction".
i understand exactly what you're saying, you're just not making sense. why should anyone recognize the iraqi conviction of hussein? if the dem congress is smart and has some balls they'll go after rumsfeld and not allow germany to do it and bring a cloud over the conviction. but, if germany tries him and convicts him, then i think, absent fraud, the conviction should be recognized by the world community, afterall, the acts were perpetrated upon the world commnunity.
i think you're right, but not just any lawyer...someone who is familiar with international law.
your a lawyer? ok cool. just checkin. I work in IT for the financial industry. I'm not going to claim I know shit about law or international law for that matter. its an interesting topic though.
I do not think rummy will be charged with anything. US tried to go through the UN before doing anything. all of the resolutions against saddam were broken. I would guess, just guessing, that the US would cover its bases to avoid conviction of its leaders.
your a lawyer? ok cool. just checkin. I work in IT for the financial industry. I'm not going to claim I know shit about law or international law for that matter. its an interesting topic though.
I do not think rummy will be charged with anything. US tried to go through the UN before doing anything. all of the resolutions against saddam were broken. I would guess, just guessing, that the US would cover its bases to avoid conviction of its leaders.
i wish i was a lawyer, just, on hiatus from lawyer training, i guess...i have one year left but i decided to take time away from the grind and finish my master's degree.
they went through the UN and, now, seemingly made their case based on false pretenses. so, it's hard to tell.
i wish i was a lawyer, just, on hiatus from lawyer training, i guess...i have one year left but i decided to take time away from the grind and finish my master's degree.
they went through the UN and, now, seemingly made their case based on false pretenses. so, it's hard to tell.
well those false pretenses turned out to be false. It wasnt a lie that Iraq had WMD's at some point. saddam used them before and had kicked out weapons inspectors many times. but yes, its hard to tell.
what is a jury, if not a group of friends deciding the fate of the defendant?
Umm...that would by a lynch mob.
A jury is a group of people deciding the fate of a defendent using a universal standard of law to which all participants in the process have directly submitted willingly.
i mean, you could bring civil suit against me for something that i did or caused to happen or allowed to happen...so...not sure how far off base it would be to say that you could do just what you are saying.
You're not that far off base. That's how fucked up our legal system has become, and that's how ridiculous the international system is. The obfuscation of sovereignty by sheer existence, rather than by will.....
or something? of course it created confusion. it always has. a conviction is a conviction no matter what. there is no "conviction".
i understand exactly what you're saying, you're just not making sense. why should anyone recognize the iraqi conviction of hussein? if the dem congress is smart and has some balls they'll go after rumsfeld and not allow germany to do it and bring a cloud over the conviction. but, if germany tries him and convicts him, then i think, absent fraud, the conviction should be recognized by the world community, afterall, the acts were perpetrated upon the world commnunity.
So because I used quotes I'm not making any sense? I think you just like to argue with me. You know exactly what I'm saying and are just being nitpicky at this point. Why shouldn't anyone recognize the Iraqi conviction of Hussein? You expect us to recognize a German conviction of Rumsfeld right? Well now I'm confused as to why a conviction by and in Iraq of an Iraqi citizen should be disregarded? If that's the case then why should the US put Rumsfeld on trial? Now you aren't making any sense.
So because I used quotes I'm not making any sense? I think you just like to argue with me. You know exactly what I'm saying and are just being nitpicky at this point. Why shouldn't anyone recognize the Iraqi conviction of Hussein? You expect us to recognize a German conviction of Rumsfeld right? Well now I'm confused as to why a conviction by and in Iraq of an Iraqi citizen should be disregarded? If that's the case then why should the US put Rumsfeld on trial? Now you aren't making any sense.
why should the conviction of hussein be recognized...because he perpetrated his acts on those people and was tried by those people. why should a conviction of rumsfeld by a german court be recognized...because he perpetrated his acts on the international community (not to mention how many u.s. soldiers were killed because of their misrepresentations). he should be tried in an international court and that conviction, if one is handed down, should be recognized by all, and by the u.s. in place of a trial here. any decision handed down by a u.s. court in the rumsfeld situation should be recognized by the international community in place of an international court.
no, i don't like to argue. i just hate when people act high and mighty and try to minimize something by using quotations...like it's meaningless merely because you have come to some factless conclusion.
A jury is a group of people deciding the fate of a defendent using a universal standard of law to which all participants in the process have directly submitted willingly.
You're not that far off base. That's how fucked up our legal system has become, and that's how ridiculous the international system is. The obfuscation of sovereignty by sheer existence, rather than by will.....
yes, if you came to my house with your friends and said i was guilty of this and that and sentenced me to some punishment, it would be a lynch mob. but, the justice system is an organized version of just that, especially the civil arena.
so, with that being said, a german court, minus fraud, has a right to try an actor in the international community. bias exists in iraq and the u.s. so i don't feel either are the proper arena for trying a u.s. appointee. but, his appointment is one that puts him in a position to affect the international community, so, when he uses his authority in a way that is not "on the level" then he has to answer to someone. in this situation, that someone might just be Germany.
why should the conviction of hussein be recognized...because he perpetrated his acts on those people and was tried by those people. why should a conviction of rumsfeld by a german court be recognized...because he perpetrated his acts on the international community (not to mention how many u.s. soldiers were killed because of their misrepresentations). he should be tried in an international court and that conviction, if one is handed down, should be recognized by all, and by the u.s. in place of a trial here. any decision handed down by a u.s. court in the rumsfeld situation should be recognized by the international community in place of an international court.
no, i don't like to argue. i just hate when people act high and mighty and try to minimize something by using quotations...like it's meaningless merely because you have come to some factless conclusion.
Whatever.. You saying a conviction "should be recognized by all" (I'm actually quoting so I guess the quotes are okay to use) doesn't mean it will be. What part of that is so hard to grasp? My point isn't whether or not the conviction is valid its that it doesn't matter because he'll never serve any time based on any international court conviction. I used "conviction" because in the end, it is meaningless when the outcome of any conviction will not be any real punishment other than not being able to go on vacation a few places. Do you think that our government is going to recognize any internation conviction for Rumsfeld?
Comments
Being a lawyer doesn't mean you know the answer either.
or something? of course it created confusion. it always has. a conviction is a conviction no matter what. there is no "conviction".
i understand exactly what you're saying, you're just not making sense. why should anyone recognize the iraqi conviction of hussein? if the dem congress is smart and has some balls they'll go after rumsfeld and not allow germany to do it and bring a cloud over the conviction. but, if germany tries him and convicts him, then i think, absent fraud, the conviction should be recognized by the world community, afterall, the acts were perpetrated upon the world commnunity.
from my window to yours
i think you're right, but not just any lawyer...someone who is familiar with international law.
from my window to yours
your a lawyer? ok cool. just checkin. I work in IT for the financial industry. I'm not going to claim I know shit about law or international law for that matter. its an interesting topic though.
I do not think rummy will be charged with anything. US tried to go through the UN before doing anything. all of the resolutions against saddam were broken. I would guess, just guessing, that the US would cover its bases to avoid conviction of its leaders.
i wish i was a lawyer, just, on hiatus from lawyer training, i guess...i have one year left but i decided to take time away from the grind and finish my master's degree.
they went through the UN and, now, seemingly made their case based on false pretenses. so, it's hard to tell.
from my window to yours
well those false pretenses turned out to be false. It wasnt a lie that Iraq had WMD's at some point. saddam used them before and had kicked out weapons inspectors many times. but yes, its hard to tell.
Umm...that would by a lynch mob.
A jury is a group of people deciding the fate of a defendent using a universal standard of law to which all participants in the process have directly submitted willingly.
You're not that far off base. That's how fucked up our legal system has become, and that's how ridiculous the international system is. The obfuscation of sovereignty by sheer existence, rather than by will.....
So because I used quotes I'm not making any sense? I think you just like to argue with me. You know exactly what I'm saying and are just being nitpicky at this point. Why shouldn't anyone recognize the Iraqi conviction of Hussein? You expect us to recognize a German conviction of Rumsfeld right? Well now I'm confused as to why a conviction by and in Iraq of an Iraqi citizen should be disregarded? If that's the case then why should the US put Rumsfeld on trial? Now you aren't making any sense.
why should the conviction of hussein be recognized...because he perpetrated his acts on those people and was tried by those people. why should a conviction of rumsfeld by a german court be recognized...because he perpetrated his acts on the international community (not to mention how many u.s. soldiers were killed because of their misrepresentations). he should be tried in an international court and that conviction, if one is handed down, should be recognized by all, and by the u.s. in place of a trial here. any decision handed down by a u.s. court in the rumsfeld situation should be recognized by the international community in place of an international court.
no, i don't like to argue. i just hate when people act high and mighty and try to minimize something by using quotations...like it's meaningless merely because you have come to some factless conclusion.
from my window to yours
yes, if you came to my house with your friends and said i was guilty of this and that and sentenced me to some punishment, it would be a lynch mob. but, the justice system is an organized version of just that, especially the civil arena.
so, with that being said, a german court, minus fraud, has a right to try an actor in the international community. bias exists in iraq and the u.s. so i don't feel either are the proper arena for trying a u.s. appointee. but, his appointment is one that puts him in a position to affect the international community, so, when he uses his authority in a way that is not "on the level" then he has to answer to someone. in this situation, that someone might just be Germany.
from my window to yours
Whatever.. You saying a conviction "should be recognized by all" (I'm actually quoting so I guess the quotes are okay to use) doesn't mean it will be. What part of that is so hard to grasp? My point isn't whether or not the conviction is valid its that it doesn't matter because he'll never serve any time based on any international court conviction. I used "conviction" because in the end, it is meaningless when the outcome of any conviction will not be any real punishment other than not being able to go on vacation a few places. Do you think that our government is going to recognize any internation conviction for Rumsfeld?