Quote:Next, when you cite international law, by all means, come into my country and try to arrest my people. I'll shoot to kill, be it Obama you are after or Cheney.Jeez. And you yelled at me earlier for calling you out on macho posturing, and here it is, plain as day. Has anyone here suggested anything even remotely like this? Since the answer is obviously no, why on earth do you bring this up? The only way anybody, Cheney or whomever, is being tried is with the consent of the US government. *That* is what people are arguing for, not some ridiculous UN-commando-squad kidnapping of former vice presidents, which valiant soldiers like yourself would thwart with lethal force. What purpose does this kind of talk serve?
Quote:What are the odd he would win?Probably low. But that's not the point. This isn't about retribution, although it certainly would be nice to see the offenders punished. This is first and foremost about the rule of law: whether the US will be a country that follows its own rules, even when that leads to politically inconvenient results. If it looks like serious laws have been broken, then they should be investigated and prosecuted. If the other side wins, then them's the breaks, but it is at least made clear that this is not just being swept under the rug. Even a not-guilty verdict would send the message that the executive is not above the law; the message being sent right now is that, in practice, it is. Thecla pointed you to the relevant section of the US code. The SCOTUS* also does not share your allergy to international law, provided it has been ratified by the US, which is the case with every convention brought up in this thread.
-Jester
* That is to say, the current controlling decisions do not. Thomas clearly does not believe even ratified treaties have any force whatsoever, but then, his view has not so far prevailed.