Sept. 11, 2001
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Saturday, May 13, 2023 22:40
VIEWED: 8201
PAGE 9 of 11
So, to bring the topic back on track:
The terrorist actions of 9/11 were under ICC jurisdiction, and the ICC was ready and able to accept custody of terrorists, just like it had taken custody of Milošević a few months earlier.
Claiming it had 'proof' the Bush administration quickly identified bin Laden as the primary target but then deliberately escalated its response to 9/11 from bin Laden and al Qaeda to any country anywhere in the world, leaving bin Laden as a footnote.
The Bush administration had the opportunity to agree to have Usama bin Laden turned over to the ICC by the Taliban, but refused - opting to invade instead.
Through simultaneous egregious blunders, the Bush administration was not able to take bin Laden into custody, or later to find proof that indeed bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.
After appointing Karzai and setting-up US pipeline negotiations, Bush dismissed any concern for bin Laden.
Shortly afterwards, the Bush administration turned it's attention and resources to Iraq and Hussein.
Six years later, Usama is free and Al Qaeda has built up to pre-9/11 capability in key areas.
☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
The Bush administration was focused neither on bin Laden nor justice. Instead, bin Laden and the Taliban were excuses to go into Afghanistan, excuses maintained only as long as dictated by circumstance. Afghanistan itself was an adventitious tidbit, but not the real focus of the Bush administration.
☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
Any questions ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Like the United Nations or the World Trade Organization, the ICC is trans-national not supra-national. This means it is a voluntary association of countries -- no nation is forced to participate.
The ICC, however, can prosecute individuals regardless of their nationality. Even if Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia failed to ratify the ICC treaty, someone like Osama bin Laden could still be prosecuted by the ICC if no other legal authority (including the American courts) stepped forward to take care of it."
The ICC does not have jurisdiction over the September 11 attacks because those attacks predated the court's existence, they in a non-ICC country, by persons who were legal residents of non-ICC countries.
It could prosecute him for other crimes he has committed or for any crime a member nation chooses to cede jurisdiction over.
An American citizen is not subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC. Thats why American soldiers cannot be tried in international courts. American citizens can be tried in foriegn courts if they fall under the laws of the countries they are in. Often that is determined by the particular countries reciprocale agreements and other international treaties (for example, the The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act).
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Any questions?
The terrorist actions of 9/11 were under ICC jurisdiction, and the ICC was ready and able to accept custody of terrorists, just like it had taken custody of Milošević a few months earlier.
How could the ICC have jurisdiction for crimes committed against non-member nations by persons residing in non-member countries?
How could Milosevic be tried by the Internation Criminal Court when he was busy being tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, a seperate entity?
Quote:
The Bush administration had the opportunity to agree to have Usama bin Laden turned over to the ICC by the Taliban, but refused - opting to invade instead.
When did our friendly neighborhood Taliban make this offer?
Why should the US accept an International Court for crimes committed on American soil?
Why should the criminals be allowed to dictate when and where they will allow criminal trials to proceed?
Why should the Taliban have not been accountable for the destruction wrought by Al Queda?
Quote:
The Bush administration was focused neither on bin Laden nor justice. Instead, bin Laden and the Taliban were excuses to go into Afghanistan, excuses maintained only as long as dictated by circumstance.
Do you consider the Bombing of Pearl Harbor to be Roosevelt's "excuse" for going into Japan?
Do you understand the difference between "excuse" and "reason"?
Its late, I'm going to use my hunger as an "excuse" to go get some dinner but I intend to be at the resturant only as long as dictated by cicrcumstance.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All these answers and more are located above. I take my comment back - you don't need a law degree, you need to learn to read.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, it does matter. Greatly.
Originally posted by rue:
Rap, it doesn't matter if the US was or is treaty to the ICC or not - the ICC still had jurisdiction over Usama bin Laden.
Quote:No need to play the game of 'Red Rover , Red Rover, send OBL over....The time to act was our right and our priority.
And if the Taliban had failed to turn bin Laden over, the US and its allies (it really did have them back then) still did have the invasion option.
Quote:
But look what happened afterward - Bush dropped the bin Laden issue like a hot potato as soon as it became inconvenient. Do you think Bush was REALLY after bin Laden ?
That Bush dropped him like a hot potato is a crock. There's every indication that Bush was and still is after OBL. All you've got it Monday morning qb-ing, which is the easiest thing in the world by far. Shoulda, woulda, coulda....
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I honestly do not think that Bush 'wanted' OBL to slip away. I am of the opinion in the case of them not dropping the 600 or so rangers in the above item a judgment call.
Originally posted by rue:
LeadB [...]
I think you're missing the logic.
Now is it possible that in Bush's heart of hearts, he pulled the entire Afghan invasion to get an oil pipe line deal? Maybe... seems a bit weak to me, but I can't rule it out.
Personally, I do not believe the Taliban would have turned OBL over to anyone; I believe they were stalling for time and hoping to make Bush look bad. Personally, I wish he had called their bluff, but I don't think they would have followed through.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
LeadB
I have time for just a short reply and won't be back for a few days - so -
Drag your eyes away from Tora Bora for a second.
In September 2001 Bush was saying "dead or alive". By March 2002 Bush was saying "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."
That's a mere 6 months later.
Bush was simply not that interested in bin Laden or justice for 9/11.
"Now is it possible that in Bush's heart of hearts, he pulled the entire Afghan invasion to get an oil pipe line deal?" No. it was an opportunistic tidbit, nothing more. Bush went to Afghanistan b/c the logic of the situation forced him there. He was REALLY interested in Hussein and so spent as short a time as possible in Afghanistan, leaving without finishing the job.
"I do not believe the Taliban would have turned OBL over to anyone; I believe they were stalling for time and hoping to make Bush look bad." If the Taliban had stalled egregiously no force in the world could have kept the US allies away (and there were many). The only ones who would have looked bad would have been the Taliban and bin Laden and they would have invited the rage of a united world.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
rue wrote: In September 2001 Bush was saying "dead or alive". By March 2002 Bush was saying "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."
That's a mere 6 months later.
Bush was simply not that interested in bin Laden or justice for 9/11
I explained in the best way I know WHY it was that Bush said what he said. You've chosen to dismiss it completely out of hand and write in your own version of the facts. Shocker there, huh?
OBL is wanted dead or alive. Period, end of discussion. When Bush later says " I'm not that concerned" , he's only attempting to put out the view that OBL's continued freedom is of some great bane to Bush's very existence. Granted, it's a tricky situation, and one Bush could have dealt better with, but he's not going to give those supporting OBL the pleasure of having Bush publically squirm at the notion that OBL is still out and about.
It's a pointless Catch 22 until OBL is dead or captured.
Rue - you're making far too big deal about this.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yanno Rue. come to think of it, I DO remember the Taliban offering to turn ObL over to the IC because they were afraid that ObL would be mistreated or something in USA hands.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You have to kind of weigh the realities here. I’m pretty sure Bush doesn’t want Bin Laden alive. No one’s ever wanted him alive, but Bush would love to have him dead for sure. But how do you do it? Invade Pakistan? Now you’ve opened up another Iraq at the expense of a US alley. For what? Just to kill a single man? A man who may or may not be in Pakistan go kill. The fact that people like rue are so quick to damn Bush for this is clear evidence that they’re blinded by ideological hatred of Bush to the realities involved. It’s the classic damned if you do-damned if you don’t. If Bush pursued bin Laden as aggressively as Rue is criticizing Bush for not doing, then Rue would be criticizing Bush for his aggressive pursuit of Bin Laden.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
OBL is wanted dead or alive. Period, end of discussion. When Bush later says " I'm not that concerned" , he's only attempting to put out the view that OBL's continued freedom is of some great bane to Bush's very existence. Granted, it's a tricky situation, and one Bush could have delt better with, but he's not going to give those supporting OBL the pleasure of having Bush publically squirm at the notion that OBL is still out and about.
It's a pointless Catch 22 until OBL is dead or captured.
Rue - you're making far too big deal about this.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME