OT - Gunner

Perhaps you should research that statement.... Joseph Wittje, 84, of Bensenville Illinois was accused of serving as a guard at Nazi Germany's Sachsenhausen concentration camp near Berlin.

His citizenship was revoked and ... well if you are interested and still believe the world court has no jurisdiction go to Google and find out what happened to him 50 years after WW2.

Kerry knows the names of men that admitted war crimes .. that makes him an accessory if he refuses to divulge names when asked to do so.

You are another example of a liber that is certain of something he knows nothing about

Jeffrey McCann wrote:

You got that right, the dWeeb is absolutely *positive* he's gonna spend your tax money and rack up the biggest budget deficit this country's ever seen.

If you want tax and spend, go right ahead and vote for the Tax&Spend party of GWBush.

Even Dwight D. Eisenhower's *son* says he's voting for Kerry, because the republicans have got the economy so badly balled up.

The sound george is now hearing is about a thousand fiscally conservative republicans rolling over in their collective graves. George, tell me if you *really* love dubya that much that you'll allow him to trash our economy just to pay off his buddies?

Jim

Right. But it makes a lovely sweet bedtime story for the neocons.

"Once upon a time there was a big bad democrat...."

Jim

It could put Kerrys ability to get the few allies he hasn't already alienated severely limited if a shitbox country like Vietnam wanted to push our head in the sand.

As far as your statement that Vietnam has more to lose then us that's bullshit too. I have not heard any Vietnamese admit to war crimes.

jurisdiction of

Slobodan Milosevic lost power and the protection it provided after losing an election and facing a national strike, tens of thousands of people protesting in the streets, and a takeover of the Parliament building in Belgrade by the crowd. He was later arrested by Serbian government authorities on domestic charges, and after the Serbian government decided to extradite him, he faced a somewhat less than fair trial under U.N. jurisdiction in the specially created "International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia." If the Serbian government wasn't so eager to get reconstruction funds, he'd still be beyond the reach of the "court." Bush has already repudiated such jurisdiction, so far as the US is concerned. Kerry facing prosecution for his conduct in Vietnam is just a pipe dream of the far right.

Wittje failed to disclose in his 1950 immigration his membership in the Waffen SS, which in 1946 had been classified by an international military tribunal as a criminal organization. A domestic court revoked his naturalization on that basis. Why is this important? Because he would then be forced to leave the United States and return from whence he came. To my knowledge, he was never tried in an international tribunal. The UN currently has exactly two international criminal courts, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

What "world court" do you incorrectly imagine has jurisdiction over war crimes committed during the Vietnam war?

Knowing the names of men who admitted war crimes doesn't legally make Kerry an accessory. His own conduct may be a different story.

I studied international law, including studying under law professors from the former Yugoslavia, on my way to my Doctor of Jurisprudence degree. The factual or educational predicate for your ignorant opinions would be what, exactly? Or are you just another blowhard NeoCon ignorantly spouting off as if you had something meaningful to say?

Jeff

jurisdiction of

In Kerry War Crimes on Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:17:26 GMT, by invntrr, we read:

Under what jurisdiction do these 'war crimes' exist?

Vietnam is not an individual and Vietnamese are not Americans. They have no standing in US courts.

Now tell us all about 'human rights'.

I'm not aware that Kerry has alienated ANY foreign country, let alone the the number of foreign states Bush has certainly alienated

Work on your reading comprehension. I wrote "beyond their own war crimes and criminals," referring implicitly to things like American goodwill, tourism and trading opportunities, which would be unduly constrained by such action.

You know, not everything you don't understand (and that appears to be quite a lot) is "bullshit." Cocksure ignorance is the mark of a blowhard, and does you no credit.

Jeff

George, tell me if you *really* love dubya that much

What a silly question! It's based on false imaginings. It doesn't really deserve an answer, but I'll try anyway.

W would not have been my first choice for the office, but he was the better of two candidates we were forced to choose between. Much like the situation now. Fortunately, he's handled the adverse situation very well.

I know many of you libs piss and moan about how it turned out... but you don't really seriously think algore would have been able to handle the job and keep spending under control? If he were capable, he would have ridden herd on clinton while he was setting us up for the current situation.

clinton/gore wasted 8 years that Saddam was in violation of the cease fire he agreed to, and stood by while the U.N. inspectors were thrown out of Iraq. Have you forgotten?

So... to bring the situation up to date, we're now facing a choice between a leader who has acquitted himself very well and a hollow man whose only two virtues are that he served in the military over 30 years ago and he is a skilled debater. Oh! I missed that he is skilled at marrying rich women and he is a lib/socialist.

W has a moral compass and a set of guiding principals that guide him well. He's led well under difficult circumstances.

sKerry has no permanent guiding principals at all except that he wants to win an election. He merely jabbers about having a lot of nebulous plans. This is too serious for us to allow him to do so.

I'm not pleased with W's excess spending beyond what we need for security, but whether you understand it or not sKerry will be much worse on spending and taxation. That's what lib/socialists do.

sKerry curb spending??? Wanna but a bridge?

George Willer

I hearby call DIBS!!! on pushing the lethal injection button on him.

Gunner

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

In polito-speak, it might. In English, it's hypocrit bullshit.

The wife and I had a great laugh over it, though.

Bush senior promised no new taxes and got crucified by the lib dem press for allowing user fees on campers at nat forest sites. They said it was a form of tax. kerry on the other hand, he promises to hike "everyone by an average of 12%" and there's not one mention of it anywhere cept FNC.

Would that had been Bush's position, the press woul dbe all over the story til election day.

That's the key point to remember.

ral

He voted AGAINST Bush's tax cut that went to those making less than $200k.

Rollback= raising taxes.

Gunner

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

Legaly [sic], it would be 'required by US law'.

"Additionally, all military personnel, regardless of rank or position, have the responsibility of reporting any incident or act thought to be a war crime to his commanding officer as soon as practicable after gaining such knowledge. Commanders receiving such reports must also make such facts known to the Staff Judge Advocate. It is quite clear that war crimes are not condoned and that every individual has the responsibility to refrain from, prevent and report such unwarranted conduct. While this individual responsibility is likewise placed upon the commander, he has the additional duty to insure that war crimes committed by his troops are promptly and adequately punished."

-Prosecution Brief on the Law of Principals in United States v. Captain Ernest L. Medina

You're sure it doesn't mean here we go round the mulberry bush?

Among all the rest. Nice to see you admit there were some, although I don't see how that causes the nuttyright to call Kerry a 'liar' when he reports the testimony of a hundred other vets that there were.

Don't worry; the Republicans will get there first.

...all because "you" donwanna pay taxes?

Give something here, what would this country be if it were only a republic, republican? What is your opinion on that?

Alex

Actualy , I think those who are loyal to their country are merely followers of yet another religion .

Doing what theyre told by the prez or priest , they give their money , their lives even if thats whats asked for , for the cause .

Kinda funny tho when you meet an atheist who is an ardent political supporter of one kind or another .

Well, *all* of their resources would be enough. But if the government were to seize *all* of their resources, the economic engine of the US would shut down (who do you think provides the capital for all the business activities which provide jobs for Americans?). Just raising the rates to where they were under Clinton won't work. That's because we no longer have a boom economy.

While what you say is true, the Congress couldn't have done it without the dot com boom of the 90s fueling the economy, and tax revenues. But that boom went bust, and with it went enormous paper fortunes which had produced huge cash flows. That's why the economy went into the tank *before* Clinton's term was over, and is a good part of the reason it hasn't fully recovered yet.

911 was a huge shock to the economy too, of course, as have been the costs of Bush's ill conceived adventure in Iraq.

I'm not talking about troop salaries, ammo, and other military operating expenses incurred in Iraq either. Troops have to be paid whether they are on the battlefield or sitting in barracks back home. Ships don't sit passively in port, nor do planes sit passively in hangers, burning no fuel and incurring no operating or maintenance costs, when they aren't actively campaigning against an enemy. It costs nearly as much to operate a peace time military as a war time one (at least for the sort of limited war Bush is trying to fight).

The direct cost increment due to the war is relatively small. What isn't small is $54 a barrel oil. Clinton and his Republican Congress didn't have to face $2 a gallon gasoline prices. In fact, energy prices were at historically low levels during the 90s. That meant anything which needed energy to be produced, or energy to be shipped, was much lower cost, so profits were higher, which means tax revenues were higher too.

Thanks in good part to Bush's neocon fantasy bungling, cheap gas is no longer a given. Oil prices are setting new records nearly daily. That's a *huge* damper on the economy. Every extra dollar spent at the gas pump is a dollar which isn't spent at Walmart, or at the GM dealer, or anywhere else that generates jobs and revenues.

Now all that said, Kerry would just make matters worse. He has no realistic plan to deal with the mess in Iraq (neither does Bush). He has no realistic energy policy (neither does Bush). But he does have a lot of spending plans we can't currently afford. He does have a tax plan that will sap the economy of the investment cash needed to get it revved up again.

He is lying when he claims the middle class will benefit. The consumer ultimately pays for *everything*. No matter how the money grab is done, it all ultimately comes out of the consumer's pocket. And most consumers make under $200,000 a year.

They're the ones who will bear the greatest burden of his economic follies. Old folks on fixed incomes will be hit hardest of all since they have no way to compensate for the higher prices Kerry's plans will cause for the necessities they must purchase.

Gary

Jeff..If this is keeping you and wife in stitches then this month may be hysterical.

The US does indeed recognize the Hague War Crimes Tribunal.. The only reason immigration was used was because it expedited his trial, after all the guy was 82.

I sent my question to Fox news and according to a minor level news person "it seems interesting"

Even if nothing comes of it just asking the question about Vietnam's legal rights could get a few people thinking.

I'm glad my post's make you and wife happy.